Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRIGHTON EXTENSION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (CRYSTALPALACE) BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

SWINDON CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

PETITION (MEAT SHORTAGE)

Mrs. Hill:: I beg to ask leave to present a Petition from the housewives represented by the National Federation of Housewives' Associations signed by 138,314 housewives and other persons living in all parts of the United Kingdom. The petitioners complain of the shortage of meat, which, they say, is causing great hardship throughout the land. They say they are receiving barely enough meat to maintain strength to work and enjoy their leisure.
The Petition concludes with the following Prayer:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that the present system whereby meat is purchased in bulk by the Government may be abolished, and that the meat trade may be allowed to undertake the purchase of supplies of meat for distribution to the public as in former days; and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Industrial Disputes

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Labour how many working days were lost through industrial disputes officially notified during the five years ended December, 1950, and December, 1923, respectfully; and how many of these days were lost during the same periods in the industries now nationalised.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Robens): The number of working days lost in stoppages of work arising from industrial disputes reported during the five years ended December, 1950, was about 9,730,000, and the number during the five years ended December, 1923, was about 178 million. In those industries which had been nationalised up to the end of 1950, the number of working days lost was about 3,770,000 during the five years ended December, 1950, and about 105 million during the five years ended December, 1923.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these figures, which show that the lost time in the nationalised industries is about one twenty-eighth of what it was, will be received with despair by those doubtful elements who continually belittle the post-war recovery of this country?

Mr. McCorquodale: Would the Minister now give us a fairer comparison, which is the number of strikes and days lost in the nationalised industries in the five years since the war, as against the number of days lost in the industries still under private enterprise?

Mr. Robens: If the right hon. Gentleman would care to put down a Question I should be very pleased to answer it. But the fact remains that there are fewer strikes in those industries which are now nationalised than there were when they were under private enterprise.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Yes, but is not one of the reasons why the right hon. Gentleman did not arm himself with the necessary figures to answer my right hon. Friend's supplementary question the fact


that he knew that the record of the nationalised industries since the war would be shown up very badly?

Mr. Robens: No, Sir. I armed myself with the figures required to answer the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although there are some discontents in the nationalised industries, the men have for long years given the most devoted and loyal service to the industries, and will continue to do so to make them a success?

Major Guy Lloyd: As the disputes in the nationalised industries today are notorious, and need no figures to prove their existence, will the right hon. Gentleman say how many industries were nationalised in 1923?

Mr. Robens: Unfortunately, we had not the right kind of Government in those days.

Sir Herbert Williams: How many of the people who were running strikes between 1918 and 1923 have now got soft jobs in the nationalised industries?

Mr. Robens: If the hon. Gentleman cares to put that question down I shall be very glad to answer it.

Staggered Holidays

Miss Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he has taken to encourage the staggering of holidays this year.

Mr. Robens: Having regard to the activities of the British Travel and Holidays Association and others concerned, it was decided that my Department should no longer itself undertake special publicity campaigns on the subject, and it has not done so this year or last year.

Miss Ward: As it is the policy to continue the staggering of holidays, has the right hon. Gentleman asked the Minister of Transport to see that adequate travelling facilities are available for those who take their holidays in June?

Mr. Robens: The British Travel and Holidays Association have, in fact, been doing that work, and have made representations to my right hon. Friend on those lines. If the hon. Lady would like me to ask the Association to send her a

copy of their report, she will see all that information contained in the report.

Mr. Shunner: In view of the fact that the number of people entitled to holidays has increased so greatly since the war, would it not be advantageous to the seaside resorts who have promised to reduce their prices if the number of people going there could be staggered from May to September? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people are unable to go to these resorts, not only because of the price but because the places are crowded, and ought not something to be done to give these people a better chance?

Mr. Robens: I think that is quite right. We all like the staggering of holidays, but we must respect the wishes of people who like to go in the summer.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is it not the case that no real progress is likely to be made in this matter until the apparently insoluble problem of staggering school holidays is settled?

Mr. Robens: In addition to that there is the problem of the fixed Bank Holiday.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would the right hon. Gentleman stagger the miners by arranging for a fortnight's holiday for them?

Mr. Robens: The hon. Gentleman will see that he is a little late if he reads the report from the mineworkers' conference.

Women Factory Inspectors (Pay)

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give an assurance that new scales of pay for factory inspectors will give women factory inspectors equal percentage increases and not lower percentage increases, as was the case in 1946, which made the women's position compared with men worse than the pre-war scale.

Mr. Robens: The claim for new scales of pay for factory inspectors is under discussion with the staff association, and I am unable to say at this stage how the new scales when settled will be found to compare with the old in terms of percentages.

Miss Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that on the last occasion an award was made the gap between


women's salaries and men's salaries was widened; and will he see that on this occasion women benefit equally with men? Otherwise, there will be trouble.

Mr. Robens: There would be even greater trouble if the Minister of Labour interfered with free voluntary negotiations between those employed and the employers.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the strength of the factory inspectorate is 40 below establishment, while the number of factories has increased from 173,000 to 208,000? In those circumstances, ought he not to grasp every opportunity of encouraging people to join this service?

Mr. Robens: I am aware that the factory inspectorate is under strength. We, are filling the gap as rapidly as possible.

Miss Ward: On this matter, would the Minister have a word with the Treasury. who appear to be the chief offenders? Will he please bear that in mind?

Mr. Robens: The hon. Lady is asking me to do something that I would not dream of doing in free negotiation. The associations representing those employed and the employers on the Whitley Council must be left to settle their own problems. It is not for us to interfere.

Sir H. Williams: But the right hon. Gentleman is the employer.

Dr. Hill: Is the Minister not aware that, being the employer of these people, he is responsible for the instructions given to one side of the Whitley Council?

Mr. Robens: I am well aware of that fact. None the less, the Whitley Council machinery is quite adequate to deal with a problem of this kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — I. L. O. CONFERENCE (EQUAL PAY)

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Labour which way the United Kingdom Government delegates, the employers' representative and the workers' representative voted at the International Labour Organisation Conference at Geneva on the proposal that a convention with a recommendation in favour of equal pay for men and women should be proceeded with.

Mr. Robens: In accordance with the usual practice, separate final votes were taken at the 34th Session of the International Labour Conference on the proposed convention and recommendation concerning equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value. The Government delegates abstained on the proposed convention and voted in favour of the proposed recommendation. The employers' delegate voted against the draft convention and the draft recommendation, and the workers' delegate voted in favour of both.

Miss Ward: Why did the Government, on this occasion, join with the employers in voting against the wishes of the workers? Is this a new policy on the part of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Robens: If the hon. Lady will look at my reply, she will see that the Government delegates and the employers' delegate voted differently on these matters.

Miss Ward: Not on the committee stage.

Mr. Robens: There is no reference to the committee stage in the Question on the Order Paper.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Labour why the British Government delegates to the International Labour Organisation Conference at Geneva this year failed to vote in favour of a convention on equal pay.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Labour why, in view of the adherence of His Majesty's Government to the principle of equal pay for women, the delegates of the British Government at the International Labour Office conference at Geneva did not vote in favour of the convention intended to embody this principle.

Mr. Robens: The Government considered that the international regulations as a whole should most appropriately be cast in the form of a recommendation. The Government delegates accordingly endeavoured to secure that the regulations should take this form. The conference nevertheless adopted regulations in the form of a convention supplemented by a recommendation. Having been defeated on an amendment designed to render the text of the convention more acceptable.


the Government delegates abstained on the final vote. They voted in favour of the supplementary recommendation.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that if the Government sign a recommendation they are under less of an obligation to do something about it than if they sign a convention; and is this the reason why His Majesty's Government failed to vote?

Mr. Robens: If the convention had been a recommendation we should have voted for it and accepted it, because then it would have left the Government free to introduce this principle when the economic condition of the country allowed.

Oral Answers to Questions — I. L. O. STAFF (INCOMES)

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Labour what instructions have been given to the British representative to protest against the present arrangements under which at least 30 per cent. of the International Labour Office staff have tax free incomes to the order of £2,400 a year.

Mr. Robens: The salary scales and the grading of the staff of the International Labour Organisation, in common with other specialised agencies associated with the United Nations, follow principles laid down by the United Nations. The present United Nations' scales have recently been reviewed and approved by the General Assembly on the recommendations of a committee of experts appointed for that purpose. Subject to minor adaptations, these scales have been adopted by the I. L. O., and no special instructions to the British representative to that organisation were called for.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: How many of the I.L.O. staff are British subjects? Do they or do they not pay full British Income Tax on their salaries; and, if not, what proportion is allowed as expenses?

Mr. Robens: I am unable to say the exact number of British subjects on the staff of the I. L. O., but they will receive salaries and terms and conditions of service in exactly the same way as other members of the staff.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Do they or do they not pay Income Tax?

Mr. Robens: I thought it was made clear that, the Government having accepted the United Nations' scales, we could hardly refuse to accept the proposition that the salaries and gradings of the staff of the I. L. O. should be in general conformity with those of the United Nations' organisation.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Could we have an answer to the question: do they pay British Income Tax or do they not?

Mr. Robens: As far as I know. their salaries are tax free.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

School Meals

Dr. Barnett Stross: asked the Minister of Education (1) what type of meatless dinners are provided in schools; and how many of these are of the type consisting of wholemeal bread sandwiches, with a filling of butter, cheese. and fresh green vegetable, and accompanied by a drink of milk:
(2) how many school children, on an average, have dinner provided at school; and of these meals how many are meatless in type.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Hardman): Subject to the general requirement that the school dinner shall be well balanced nutritionally and designed as the main meal of the day, the dietaries used are a matter for the discretion of the local education authorities and their expert advisers, who give very careful consideration to the children's nutritional requirements. I cannot, therefore say how many of the 2,600,000 dinners served daily correspond with my hon. Friend's description, but of necessity a proportion of the meals are based on such foods as cheese rather than meat, and the use of uncooked green vegetables is steadily increasing.

Dr. Stross: Is my hon. Friend aware that the type of meal that I have described in this Question was first offered to school children in Derbyshire as their main meal before the war, and not in Oslo as is sometimes thought, and is considered by nutritional experts to be better than the average orthodox meal? In view of the fact that some children do not like meat and find difficulty in


eating it, will he consider circularising the local authorities on this point and offering them an alternative?

Mr. Hardman: The advice I have received is contrary to my hon. Friend's suggestion. At present there is a meat allowance for school dinners sufficient to serve meat four days out of five, and we have found that this is the most satisfactory meal and the one most desired by the majority of girls and boys attending school.

Mr. Morley: asked the Minister of Education in what way it is intended that the school meals service will be limited.

Mr. Hardman: There is no intention to limit the school meals service. As my hon. Friend knows, building to extend the service in existing schools was stopped in the autumn of 1949. The effect of the defence programme is that the resumption of building for this purpose will have to be postponed.

Mr. Morley: If there is no intention of limiting school meals, why did my hon. Friend say, last Thursday, that they were to be limited?

Mr. Hardman: I did not say that. I said on Thursday last that there would be a postponement of the increases which we had envisaged. We regret the postponement, but the fact is it will take a longer time to reach the capital expenditure which we would have put in our programme.

Dr. Stross: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind, however, that without extensions and without cooking it is possible to offer quite substantially good meals?

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Does the Minister's reply cover temporary structures which have been approved for the provision of dining rooms, or does he mean only permanent structures?

Mr. Hardman: If the work is necessary to extend an existing building it will not be reduced, and adequate dining facilities will be part of every new school to be constructed or at present under construction. That is as far as I can go.

Mr. Llewellyn: Is it not a fact that the school meals' service has been limited recently owing to the increase in cost, with the consequence that a number of children are now unable to pay for the meals?

Mr. Hardman: No, Sir, I would not admit that.

Sir H. Williams: As the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley), has drafted a Question that the hon. Gentleman has failed to understand, is it not desirable that both of them should have a course in English?

Mr. Hardman: I am quite willing to take on the hon. Gentleman.

Mrs. Eirene White: asked the Minister of Education when he expects that school meals will be provided at Bronington V.P. school.

Mr. Hardman: Acceptable arrangements for the provision of meals at Bronington Church of England School have been proposed by the local education authority for Flintshire. The. arrangements are, however, linked with proposals to improve the sanitary accommodation at the school, and part of the cost of these proposals will have to be borne by the school managers if the school is to be a voluntary aided school, as they wish. So far, the managers have not been able to satisfy my right hon. Friend that they have sufficient financial resources to sustain voluntary aided status.

Mrs. White: Is my hon. Friend aware that discussions on this matter have been going on since 1949, and does he not think that with a little good sense and good will on both sides the matter might be brought to a conclusion?

Mr. Hardman: Yes, Sir. We last got in touch with the managers on 14th June last, and we are hoping for a reply very quickly.

Harlow

Mr. Nigel Davies: asked the Minister of Education (1) what estimate he has received from the Harlow Development Corporation of the number which the school population is expected to reach in the next five years;
(2) what steps are being taken to provide for the additional school population of the new town at Harlow; and what form does he envisage the improvisation in school organisation will take referred to in a letter from his Department to the hon. Member for Epping, dated 9th June.

Mr. Hardman: According to statistics provided by the Harlow Development


Corporation the number of children from 5 to 15 years of age is expected to rise from 275 in December, 1951, to about 2,000 in December, 1954. A new temporary primary school for 200 children has already been opened, a permanent primary school for 560 children is under construction and a secondary school for 960 is to be started in this year's building programme. The building programme for 1952–53 has not yet been settled, but the needs of Harlow will be taken into account. Improvisation would take the form of using for junior pupils accommodation intended for seniors and vice versaas immediate needs required.

Mr. Davies: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that the improvisation will in no way take the form of increasing the size of classes to a point where education becomes ineffective, and will he say why, if he now has these figures, I received a letter from his secretary, dated 9th June, implying that the Ministry did not know how many children were involved?

Mr. Hardman: We know now. As regards the size of classes, naturally my right hon. Friend and myself are determined to do all we can to prevent any increase in their size.

Mr. Davies: Was it not now rather late to find out how many children there are, if these figures were available before?

Mr. Hardman: No. Sir.

Ineducable Children

Mr. MacColl: asked the Minister of Education how many children, during the last convenient year, have been reported by local education authorities under Section 5 of the Education Act, 1944, as incapable of receiving education at school.

Mr. Hardman: The number of children reported by local education authorities in 1950 under Section 57 of the Education Act, 1944, as incapable of receiving education at school, was 3,286.

Mr. MacColl: Can my hon. Friend say whether these figures bear any relation to the alternative facilities available for children under the health authorities, and whether these children can be kept in schools where nothing else can be done for them?

Mr. Hardman: I think that the relationship is perfectly adequate.

Halstead Place and Kevington House, Kent

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Education if, in view of the fact that the premises of Halstead Place and Kevington, St. Mary Cray, both in Kent, are deteriorating he will state what use is to be made of these premises by his Department.

Mr. Hardman: Kevington House has already been taken into use as a primary school. I am at present considering with the local education authority the possibility of including in the building programme for 1952–53 the work of adapting Halstead Place as a boarding special school for educationally sub-normal boys.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that since the Government took over these beautiful buildings they are rapidly deteriorating, causing loss to the taxpayer and sorrow and indignation to all the inhabitants of the district? It is an absolute disgrace.

Mr. Hardman: My information is that Kevington House has been put in full repair and is a very adequate building for a primary school. Halstead Place is to be adapted, and when the adaptation is complete perhaps the building itself will have been enhanced.

Sir W. Smithers: It is falling to pieces.

Mr. John Rodgers: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the adaptation of Halstead Place will be effected?

Mr. Hardman: I cannot give that information at present.

Training Colleges (Women Students)

Mr. Ralph Morley: asked the Minister of Education how many of the 8,000 places available for women students at the two-year training colleges have not yet been filled.

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Education what number of women candidates are required for 1951 for the two-year training colleges; and whether present applications are as yet sufficient to fill that number this autumn.

Mr. Hardman: The general training colleges are likely to have room for the admission this autumn of very nearly 8,000 women students. Up to 1st July sufficient


applicants had been selected to fill about 7,150 of these places, leaving nearly 850 still to be filled.

Mr. Morley: In view of the great shortage of women teachers in the profession, can my hon. Friend say what action his Department have taken to train more girls? Would not the application of the principle of equal pay be of assistance in this matter?

Mr. Hardman: I can give, very briefly, the steps we are taking. There is the all important one of the increase in grants for training college students by bringing the income scale for students' contributions into line with that used for State scholarships. We have been attempting to persuade children to enter the teaching profession through the Press and the B. B. C. Also, the Ministry of Labour have for some time been giving prominence to the opportunities for training teachers, and some training colleges have been making their own efforts.

Mr. Hollis: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the exact relationship, if they are not quite the same, between the places available in the training colleges mentioned in the hon. Member's Question and the places required to fulfil the educational programme in my Question? Are there enough places available to fulfil the required educational programme?

Mr. Hardman: If all the places I mentioned in answer to the first Question ate filled, after allowing for recruitment from the men's colleges and universities, we expect to increase the total number of teachers at the rate of some 4,000 a year and that would meet, we hope. the 1950 staffing standards.

Mr. Angus Maude: Can the Minister tell us whether the main trouble is the lack of applicants or the lack of suitable applicants'? Is it that the standard of application has fallen or that there is an absolute deficiency in the numbers?

Mr. Hardman: It is, I think, three years ago since there was a general complaint that there was too large a pool of students waiting to get into these training colleges. We have so increased the accommodation of the colleges that that pool no longer exists, but we are still left with a gap to fill of some 850 between now and the beginning of the next Michaelmas term.

Mr. George Thomas: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be no reduction of the standard required of entrants in his efforts to fill these places?

Mr. Hardman: I can certainly give that assurance.

Grammar Schools

Mr. Morley: asked the Minister of Education, for the last scholastic year, what proportion of boys and girls, respectively, left the grammar schools before completing the full course up to the age of 17 or 18.

Mr. Hardman: In the educational year 1949–50 64.5 per cent. of the boys and 66.7 per cent. of the girls leaving grant-aided grammar schools were under 17. The comparable percentages of those leaving before 18 were 79.3 and 83.1 respectively.

Mr. Morley: In view of the great need for administrators, technologists and scientists what is my hon. Friend's Department doing to persuade a greater proportion of boys and girls to stay on to the age of 17 or 18 in the grammar schools?

Mr. Hardman: My right hon. Friend and I are very anxious that everything should be done to increase the length of the school life in the grammar schools. We are not in favour of legislation in regard to this, but we are in favour of attempting to persuade the local authorities, governing bodies and headmasters, to do everything they can to persuade parents that it is invaluable for those having a grammar school education to complete the full course up to 18 years of age.

Miss Bacon: Does my right hon. Friend think that the adoption of more comprehensive schools would lead to more children staying at school beyond the age of 15?

Mr. Hardman: That is an experiment which will have to be tried over a number of years before I can answer that question. The picture is perhaps not as black as I have suggested, because the total number of pupils at maintained grammar schools in 1950 at the age of 18 was 14,000 boys and 13,000 girls, compared with 7,000 boys and 6,000 girls in 1938.

Mr. Sidney Marshall: Will the Minister consider the question in regard to the answer he gave whereby boys and girls in grammar schools are now leaving before they are 17. because local authorities find that persuasion is now insufficient and are losing pupils even before they are 16?

Mr. Hardman: If my hon. Friend has any suggestions to make to us, we shall gladly listen to them.

Capital Investment (University Building)

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Education whether he will give details of the capital programme for education in 1951 and 1952; and of the extent of the proposed reduction in university building.

Mr. Hardman: On the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave the hon. Members for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) and the hon. and gallant Member for Horn-castle (Commander Maitland) on 28th June. The second part of the Question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir I. Fraser: Could the Minister state whether there will be a reduction in this building programme or not?

Mr. Hardman: The figure I have already given to the House for the investment programme for education for 1950 is £45.3 million; that was the actual expenditure. The expenditure approved for 1951 is £53 million and, for 1952, £57.5 million. There is no question of a cut in certain parts of the programme. The programme will be increased, but it will not be increased as fast as we had hoped some months ago.

Sir I. Fraser: Was not the Chancellor's announcement made since these figures were approved?

Mr. Hardman: No, Sir. These are the actual figures which have been approved for 1951 and 1952.

Schools, Wales

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Education the number of schools now under construction in Wales for each of the following categories, namely, primary, secondary modern, secondary grammar

and special for physically handicapped children.

Mr. Hardman: Forty-eight new primary schools; four secondary-modern schools; three secondary-grammar schools and five other secondary schools are now under construction in Wales. Major extensions to four existing primary schools, five secondary-grammar schools and three other secondary schools are also under construction. No special school for physically handicapped children is included in current building programmes in Wales.

Mr. Thomas: While thanking my hon. Friend for his most encouraging reply to the first part of the Question, may I ask if he is aware that there are special claims for the physically handicapped children, and will he see that they do not suffer unduly through the cuts proposed in the investment programme?

Mr. Hardman: Yes, Sir; my right hon. Friend and I are doing everything in our power to be as generous as possible in providing for the handicapped child.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if an area as large as Wales does not provide its own schools for severely physically handicapped children they inevitably seek schools elsewhere? As these schools are already overcrowded, will he do what he can to make each area provide its own?

Mr. Hardman: Yes, Sir.

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Education the number of technical schools provided in Wales since 1945; the number for which plans have been approved; and the number now under construction.

Mr. Hardman: No new technical college has been completed in Wales since 1945, but five are under construction. Major extensions to four colleges have been completed since 1945 and three extension projects are under construction.

Mr. Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that for Wales this means that more will be provided than in the entire years between the wars, and that his answer will be much appreciated?

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Education what further report he has received from the Joint Education Committee for Wales concerning the provision


of school accommodation for spastic children; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hardman: This question was one of several discussed by officers of the Ministry and the Special Services Sub-Committee of the Welsh Joint Education Committee last April. It was suggested that the building of a school for physically handicapped children, including spastics, should start in 1952–3My right hon. Friend is now waiting for a definite proposal to build such a school.

Mr. Thomas: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that these children will not suffer as a result of the proposed cuts in the investment programme?

Mr. Hardman: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Donnelly: Is my hon. Friend nevertheless aware of the very considerable feeling that exists on this side of the House about this problem, and will he do all he can to solve the problem?

Mr. Hardman: We recognise the general shortage of special schools, particularly in Wales, and, as I have already said, we are determined to do everything possible to speed up their provision.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the hon. Gentleman taking any steps to provide accommodation for spastic Ministers?

Mr. Hardman: Yes, Sir, and I would propose making the hon. Gentleman the principal in charge.

Deaf Children (Clinics)

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Minister of Education to what extent the educational needs of deaf children are being met by the provision of pre-school clinics; and how many clinics are in operation.

Mr. Hardman: The educational needs of deaf children are met in special schools, not in clinics. Children not yet attending school, who are suspected of suffering from some hearing defect, are referred to clinics provided by or in conjunction with the school health service in order to ascertain whether they are in need of special educational treatment.

Mr. Watkinson: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the educational facilities for deaf children are entirely adequate?

Mr. Hardman: No, Sir, I do not.

Church School, Kilburn (Closing)

Mr. Orbach: asked the Minister of Education what representations he has received from the Willesden Borough Council with regard to the Gordon Memorial Church of England School, Cambridge Road, Kilburn, N.W.6; if he is aware that the managers have decided to close the school at the end of the current term, thereby waiving the statutory notice under Section 14 of the Education Act, 1944; and, in view of the need in the area for this school, if he will give an undertaking that the school will be reopened next term as usual.

Mr. Hardman: Yes, Sir, my right hon. Friend has been notified of the managers' intention to discontinue this school and is aware of the representations made to the local education authority by the Willesden Borough Council. He has asked the local education authority whether they propose to conduct the school as if it were a county school for the unexpired period of the two years' notice, as they are entitled to do under Section 14 (3) of the Education Act, 1944, or whether they would propose to make alternative arrangements for the pupils.

Coombe Hall, East Grinstead (Maladjusted Children)

Colonel Clarke: asked the Minister of Education why, in spite of local objections and following a statement of disapproval by the local planning authority, Coombe Hall, East Grinstead, has been approved for use by the London County Council as a hostel and school for maladjusted children without any further contact or a public inquiry being held.

Mr. Hardmanm: My right hon. Friend has been in consultation with his right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning. While it would have been more usual for discussions to have taken place with the local planning authority about their objections, and it is regretted that this was not done, the hon. Member may rest assured that very full consideration was given to all the objections before consent was given to the proposal.

Colonel Clarke: Does the Minister appreciate that we do not wish to be unco-operative, as he will know from his experience in the starting of a similar


school in the neighbourhood, but there is very strong feeling in this district owing to an unfortunate experience not long ago? Bulldozing tactics of this sort will start any school off on a poor wicket vis-a-visits neighbours.

Mr. Hardman: I am very sorry, as I have said.

Called-Up Teachers (Pay)

Mr. Dryden Brook: asked the Minister of Education if he will make a statement as to the payment of salaries to teachers called-up for training with the reserve and auxiliary Forces for the period of their absence.

Mr. Hardman: The Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Bill, which is at present before the House, deals with the salary and superannuation position of teachers who are called-up for three months, or longer, under the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Training) Act, 1951.
The pay and leave arrangements for teachers who are called-up for 15 days' training as Class Z or Class G reservists are within the discretion of employing authorities. There is no reason, so far as I am concerned why local education authorities should not allow their teachers special leave with pay for either the whole, or part, of the 15 days, whether it falls in term time or holiday time, and any expenditure so incurred would be recognised for Exchequer grant.

Mr. G. Thomas: Is my hon. Friend communicating with local education authorities along those lines?

Mr. Hardman: No general guidance has been issued to local education authorities, but some authorities have applied to my right hon. Friend for advice, and the advice that they have received is along the lines which I have indicated.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Will the Minister tell local authorities about the very welcome statement that he has just made?

Mr. Hardman: I think that the publicity given to the answer will certainly get to them.

Mr. Morley: Is the position of teachers in direct-grant schools safeguarded?

Mr. Hardman: I should like to look into that point.

County School, Hornsey (Closing)

Mr. Messer: asked the Minister of Education if he is aware that the decision of the Middlesex County Council to close the Hornsey County School is strongly opposed by the parents of the pupils now at the school; that if the decision is upheld it will seriously deplete the number of grammar school places in Tottenham and Harringay; and if, in consequence of the serious consequences of the proposal, he will withhold consent until he has held an inquiry.

Mr. Hardman: The Middlesex Local Education Authority have submitted to my right hon. Friend a proposal to cease to maintain the Hornsey County School and they issued the necessary public notices on 18th May. Objections to the proposal have been received and will be carefully considered before a decision is reached. It would not be proper for me to express any opinion about the proposal until the period for the publication of the notices has expired.

Mr. Messer: In view of the exceptional nature of the step which the County Council proposed to take, would my hon. Friend ensure that there will be adequate inquiry, even to the extent of receiving a deputation, if led by the Member of Parliament for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) and myself?

Mr. Hardman: I am not in a position to say that a local inquiry must be held. We cannot make such a decision until the expiry of the notices on 18th August.

Mr. Gammans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a petition signed by more than 10,000 people has been forwarded to the Minister, protesting against this action? In view of that fact, is not the Minister at least under a moral obligation at this stage to give a promise to hold an inquiry?

Mr. Hardman: We are bound by the notices, which run until 18th August. My right hon. Friend cannot at the moment give a decision because he is bound by the fact that 18th August is the expiry date.

Mr. H. Hynd: The Minister has mentioned the decision of the local education committee. Is he aware that in this case the majority opinion on the local


education committee is merely an automatic echo of the opinion on the Middlesex County Council? Will he have regard to that fact in deciding whether to hold a local inquiry?

Mr. Hardman: Yes, Sir. Due attention will be paid to representations on both sides.

Secondary Schools, Holloway and Parliament Hill (Place Costs)

Mr. Angus Maude: asked the Minister of Education whether he has considered the proposals from the London County Council to provide 850 extra places at Holloway secondary school at a cost of £370,000, or £435 per place, and 850 extra places at Parliament Hill secondary school at a cost of £395,000, or £465 per place; and whether he has yet reached his decision on these proposals.

Mr. Hardman: These schemes are still being considered and will have to be discussed further with the London County Council. I do not, however, accept the figures of cost per place stated in the Question.

Mr. Maude: Is the Minister aware that the only way in which the figures of cost per place can be made to look more favourable is by including in the sum the 510 pupils who are already in each of these existing school? Calculation that way simply means that we are writing off the existing cost of the buildings as nil?

Mr. Hardman: Yes. Sir, I am quite aware of that. The question of reducing the cost of these jobs is being taken up at present with the authorities concerned.

Teachers (Special Allowances)

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Education whether he will make, or publish, a statement on the various schemes by which local education authorities are proposing to pay the special allowances for teachers recommended in the Burnham Award.

Mr. Hardman: No. Sir. This matter is one for decision by individual local education authorities within the broad rules laid down in the Burnham Reports, and

my right hon. Friend considers that it would be premature for him to make inquiries at this stage about their intentions.

Mr. Hollis: I am perfectly well aware of that, but it is not an answer to my Question. I am aware that this is a matter for the local education authorities, but a new principle of decision of great importance rests upon it. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at least three local education authorities have said that they would be glad to know how other education authorities are dealing with this problem, so that they can take tips from them? I am not asking the Minister to interfere but to make available information, so that one local education authority can know what another is doing.

Mr. Hardman: Education authorities have their own associations. They are constantly exchanging information at their conferences and executive meetings, and through their journal called "Education." There is no question of their failing to get tips from each other.

Comprehensive Schools (Curricula)

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Education whether it is the policy of his Department that comprehensive schools be organised on a curriculum pattern or on an ability pattern.

Mr. Hardman: My right hon. Friend does not attempt to lay down the basis on which the curricula of grant-aided schools should be drawn up. This is a matter for the authorities of the individual school, subject only to the overriding consideration, laid down in the Act, that the pupils shall be educated according to their different ages, abilities and aptitudes.

Mr. Hollis: Would it not be very much better if the Socialist Party did not undertake propaganda in favour of the principle of the comprehensive school until they had found out how the comprehensive school will work?

Mr. Hardman: I am not quite sure what is in the hon. Gentleman's mind. Any political party or any organisation interested in education has a perfect right to express its views. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to a pamphlet called "A Policy for Secondary Education," there are very many suggestions in it but I think that there is very little that is dogmatic in its pages.

Mr. Cove: Is my hon. Friend aware that the most noted comprehensive school in this country is Eton, and that Rugby is also a comprehensive school? Would he not agree that what is good for the scholars at Eton and Rugby is also good for the ordinary, normal scholars throughout the country?

Mr. Hardman: Not having been to Eton myself, I am not quite sure of the answer to that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Pottery Industry (JapanesePractices)

Mr. Edward Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to stop unfair trade practices among Japanese manufacturers and exporters, in respect of home pottery production and marketing.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Bottomley): As my hon. Friend was informed in reply to his Questions on 23rd November and 27th February last, there is now legal protection in Japan against misuse or copying of designs and trade marks, and in one case the Japanese firm has already stopped making the goods in question. The investigations into another case, referred to in the reply of 27th February, have now been settled satisfactorily. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary wrote to my hon. Friend about this on 23rd May.

Mr. Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware that I received a reply from the Board of Trade on 23rd May saying that the matter was being followed up with the Japanese Minister of Trade and Industry? Is he in a position to give me any further information about that?

Mr. Bottomley: I thought that the latter part of my answer gave the necessary information.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Is the Minister aware that pirated designs for textiles in considerable number are exported to markets that Britain has been fulfilling? Will he take this matter up very vigorously?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir.

Imported Foreign Cloth (Quality)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that merchants are importing foreign cloth which they can sell at a higher price than British cloth although it is of inferior quality; and whether he will arrange for a check on quality by issuing an import licence for each consignment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Rhodes): In accordance with His Majesty's Government's trade liberalisation policy, most cloth (other than silk or cashmere cloth), in common with many other classes of goods, can now be imported under open general licence from many countries. I would remind my hon. Friend that import restrictions in general can be justified only if they are required to safeguard our balance of payments, and we are not prepared to reintroduce import licensing of individual consignments for the purpose which he has in mind.

Mr. Hynd: As there appears to be no contradiction of the facts outlined in my Question and there appears to be a prima faciecase of discrimination against British cloth manufacturers, would my hon. Friend receive a deputation on the question.

Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Sir, I would.

Binder Twine (Price)

Commander Maitland: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost of a ton of hinder twine in 1939, 1945 and at the last convenient date.

Mr. Rhodes: The price of binder twine was £41 10s. per ton in 1939 and £83 per ton in 1945. The price for the current season to 30th September. 1951, is £269 per ton.

Commander Maitland: To what does the Minister attribute this astonishing rise in price? Does he realise that a ton of binder twine, which is about what is used on 1,000 acres of ordinary Eastern counties arable land, costs more than the amount paid to an agricultural worker for one year?

Mr. Rhodes: Yes. Sir. The principle rise is in the raw materials, which cost


£17 per ton in 1939 and £45 per ton in 1945 and now costs £243 per ton.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Am I right in assuming that binder twine is made of sisal? If it is, is it not possible for some substitute material to be found to meet this appalling problem?

Mr. Rhodes: Sisal is the principal component in binder twine.

Tobacco Prices

Mr. Janner: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the large profits made by tobacco companies, he will now introduce price control for tobacco and cigarettes.

Mr. Rhodes: Except in the case of some pipe tobaccos, there have been no changes since well before the war in the retail prices of tobacco and cigarettes apart from increases following changes in the tobacco duties. At present, therefore, I do not consider it necessary to impose a statutory price control.

Mr. Janner: Is my hon. Friend aware that statements are now being made that it is proposed to increase the price of cigarettes and pipe tobacco? Is he also aware that there is very grave concern throughout the country about it, and will he see that there is no increase?

Mr. Rhodes: I will certainly consider the matter.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if the tobacco companies took a halfpenny off the price of a packet of cigarettes they would turn all their profits to losses?

Mr. Nally: Can we have a clear assurance from my hon. Friend that his reply was not intended to give the slightest encouragement to the industry, which is making exceptionally high profits, to increase the prices at which they are already doing so well?

Mr. Rhodes: I gave no encouragement in any shape or form.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Boundary Adjustments, Yetminster

Mr. Digby: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has yet received

a report from the Agricuitural Land Commission regarding farm boundary adjustments in the Yetminster area of Dorset; and whether they have recommended that a boundary adjustment scheme should be introduced.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Champion): No, Sir.

Poultry Feedingstuffs (Allocation)

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can now make a statement with regard to the discontinuance of allocating feedingstuffs for poultry on the 1939 basis.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the increasing dissatisfaction and injustice caused by the retention of the 1939 position as the basis for the allocation of poultry feedingstuffs; and if he is now prepared to revise the arrangements so as to bring them more into line with present day needs.

Mr. Champion: No, Sir, I have nothing to add to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch), on 8th February last.

Mr. Crouch: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been great changes in occupation since 1939 and that a great number of the new occupiers of agricultural holdings are ex-Service men who are anxious to go in for egg production? if the hon. Gentleman would consult the Minister of Food he would find that his right hon. Friend would very much appreciate an increased supply of eggs.

Mr. Champion: We recognise that, but the difficulty is to devise ways of avoiding hardship to many old-established producers. We have consulted the Ministry's advisory committee about this on many occasions.

Butter (Marking)

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Minister of Agriculture why he ordered that alt butter had to be marked with the country of origin; and what consideration made him cancel the order.

Mr. Champion: The Order in Council providing for the marking of butter was


made in 1932 under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926. It was suspended during the war and the suspension will continue until May, 1952. If difficulties connected with printing and supplies of wrapping paper had not occurred, the Order would have come into force again in May this year.

Brigadier Clarke: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that recently grocers and butter salesmen were told to mark their wrappings with the country of origin, but that no sooner had the order gone out than it was cancelled? A number of firms were put to great expense. What happened before the war has nothing to do with what happens now, because before the war we could buy buttter from any country we liked.

Mr. Champion: I have no information about instructions having been issued. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will send me particulars I will look into the matter.

Land Acquisition

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will give an assurance that as a general rule he will not give clearance to local authorities or other Government Departments intending to acquire agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes without first consulting the owner of the land concerned.

Mr. Champion: No, Sir. My Department is consulted in these matters in order that the agricultural implications of particular proposals may be fully studied by my officers from the point of view of the broad national interest. My right hon. Friend does not think it would be appropriate at this stage to seek the views of the owners of the land, who will of course have ample opportunities of making their views known before any land is actually acquired.

Mr. Vane: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that answer is most unsatisfactory, and that however wise his officials may be they cannot be arriving at a decision with the full evidence unless they know the plans of the owner and perhaps those of the occupier of the piece of land? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to look into this again in the light of that submission?

Mr. Champion: I will certainly bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend the representation which has been made, but the Ministry of Agriculture must look at this from the broad national interest rather than the interest of the owners.

Mr. Remnant: Will the hon. Member consult his colleagues to see if the Ministry could at least inform the owner that it is their intention to take over the land?

Mr. Champion: When there is intention to acquire, notice will, of course, be served upon the owner.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in the past a very large amount of land has been wasted and that unnecessary expense has been incurred because Departments have not consulted those who have had long experience in these matters and whose advice would have been of great value?

Mr. Vane: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that "the broad national interest," as he put it, cannot possibly be served unless the official making the decision knows all the factors concerned in the case and that the plans of the owner must be an important factor?

Mr. Champion: I have already said that I will bring that aspect of the matter to the notice of my right hon. Friend.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Film Strips)

Mr. Percy Wells: asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in view of the representations made to him by the National Farmers' Union he will reconsider his decision not to proceed with the preparation of film strips showing the precautions to be taken in preventing outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease.

Mr. Champion: This suggestion has been carefully considered, but I am advised that the subject is not very suitable for treatment by means of film strips. Adequate publicity has been and will be given to this matter in other ways.

Raw Bone Meal (Imports)

Mr. P. Wells: asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in view of the evidence that anthrax has been introduced into this country by raw bone meal produced from sun-dried bones, he will stop its importation.

Mr. Champion: No, Sir. To prohibit the importation of raw bone meal would mean depriving farmers of considerable quantities of an important organic fertiliser and I do not think the risk of disease justifies this in present circumstances.

HAMBLE RIVER (BANK BREAKDOWN)

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is prepared to take in order to arrest the progressive breakdown of the river bank of the Hamble River between Swanwick and Warsash, which is being accompanied by destruction of the right of way together with increasing flooding and loss of agricultural land previously protected or reclaimed.

Mr. Champion: My right hon. Friend is advised by the Hampshire River Board, the statutory drainage authority concerned, that only a limited area is affected and it would not be economic to carry out remedial works, the cost of which would be considerable.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this Question was originally directed to the Minister of Local Government and Planning? As a number of Ministries are concerned and as the matter involves not only agricultural land but also a right of way, and many people may have to contribute to this rebuilding, can the hon. Gentleman say what share his Ministry will bear and what other Ministries are involved?

Mr. Champion: The Ministry of Agriculture is involved in so far as the agricultural land is within the land in question. As to the footpaths. that is a matter for the urban district council acting in consultation with the Hampshire River Board.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: As this matter has been referred to me by the council because they have been unable to find out what other bodies besides themselves will contribute, and how much will be contributed, can the hon. Gentleman say how much his Ministry will contribute?

Mr. Champion: Not without notice.

CORACLE FISHING, RIVER TEIFI

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has yet received any representations from the West Wales River Board regarding the issuing of further licences for coracle fishermen on the River Teifi.

Mr. Champion: No, Sir; but I understand that the river board is examining the question.

Mr. Donnelly: Is my hon. Friend aware that the river board has been examining the question for some weeks now, that a number of the coracle fishermen are well over 70 years of age, and that if the examination of this matter continues long enough there will be no coracle fishermen left?

Mr. Champion: The byelaws in question are the responsibility of the authority and we must be prepared to receive representations from it as and when it completes its examination.

Mr. Donnelly: Is my hon. Friend prepared to draw to the attention of the river board the fact that time is passing and that it would be a good thing to have an answer as soon as possible?

Mr. Champion: I imagine that the river board is conscious of the pressure which the hon. Member and other people are bringing about the matter.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many men there still are who are qualified for this tricky sport?

Mr. Champion: I have not got the figures of the number of men actually involved.

PERSIA (ANGLO-IRANIANOIL COMPANY)

Mr. Eden: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the situation in Persia.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Sir, since my last statement to the House about the situation in Persia, on 27th June, the International Court at The Hague has heard our application for an


interim injunction requiring the Persian Government to do nothing which would prejudice the case which we have brought before the Court. That hearing took place on 30th June, and the Court's decision is expected this afternoon. I should perhaps make it clear that this decision will treat only with our application for an injunction, and will not touch on our main case.
On 30th June, His Majesty's Ambassador at Teheran delivered a Note to the Persian Minister of Foreign Affairs. The text of this Note has been published in the Press, and I would therefore say only that its main point was to emphasise that responsibility for the withdrawal of tankers and the progressive closing down of the Company's installations which would thereby be necessitated resulted solely from the present intransigent attitude of the Persian Government.
The next development was the suspension by the Persian Government of the so-called Sabotage Bill which, as I mentioned in my statement on 26th June, had recently been introduced in the Persian Lower House.
This indication that the Persian Government was becoming aware of the need for restraint was welcomed; but it has unfortunately been offset by other action against the Company. The Information Offices of the Company have been closed down by the Persian Government, and the documents that have been taken away have been distorted to suggest that they were incriminating. The house of the Company's representative in Teheran has also been occupied, apparently on the personal instructions of the Persian Prime Minister, and the Company's papers that were on the premises have been taken away.
Mr. Mason, who became the Company's chief representative at Abadan when Mr. Drake was compelled to leave, has been evicted from his offices, and the so-called Temporary Board of Directors which the Persian Government has sent down to the oilfields refuse to recognise the Company's representative; instead, the Board has nominated one of its members as General Manager. One of the Company's representatives elsewhere has similarly been evicted.
There have also been other unwarranted interferences in the Company's affairs, such as the requisitioning of the Abadan

Manager's motorcars and house for the personal use of Mr. Makki, the leading member of the Temporary Board. I do not understand what the Persians hope to gain by these tactics. They keep professing that they want to retain British technicians, and that they treat foreigners in Persia with traditional courtesy.
At all events, it is clear that conditions are becoming intolerable. Our attitude remains the same. The Company has no desire to withdraw from an industry which it has built and brought into a high state of efficiency. Yet this, with all the disastrous consequences to Persia that would ensue, is what the Persian Government appear bent on forcing the Company to do.
As regards the physical safety of our people in South Persia, we have again reminded the Persian Government of its responsibilities. At the same time, we can leave nothing to chance. H.M.S. "Mauritius," as the House is aware, is lying close to Abadan, and all practicable measures to protect British lives, should the Persians fail to discharge their responsibilities, have been put in hand.

Mr. Eden: Can the Foreign Secretary tell us when he expects the findings of The Hague Court to be available to us? As regards the general situation, I do not want to impinge on the business that is to be announced, but in view of the seriousness of this, and in some respects the increasing gravity of the situation, the House will understand that it might be necessary next week to make some change of business to allow some discussion upon this situation.

Mr. Morrison: On the first point, we are rather anticipating that the decision of the Court will be made known this afternoon; it may be at any time. Of course, I cannot be certain: it is a matter within the control of the Court. On the second point, that is, of course, for the Leader of the House, and I am sure that the Opposition as much as we will take into account the circumstances and whether it would be wise in the public interest at the time. However, that is a matter upon which I would not wish to be dogmatic one way or the other at this stage.

Mr. Churchill: Should the Foreign Secretary have anything else to tell us on Monday, no doubt he will do so?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, certainly; and as the right hon. Gentleman knows, if there is a desire on the part of the Opposition, or on our part, that we should have private conversations, they will take place as they have been doing.

Mr. Grimond: Have the Government considered referring this dispute to the Security Council, or otherwise raising it in the United Nations organisation?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think that in the circumstances of this case, at any rate at the present time, that would be a wise course.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is it a practical possibility that my right hon. Friend could initiate through the United Nations organisation a Middle East oil conference at which the Middle Eastern countries and the Western Powers could be represented even while The Hague Court discussion is going on? Secondly, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is taking any initiative to approach the Brazilian Government on the possibility of allowing British companies to prospect and bore in the 700,000 square miles still unexplored in Brazil in the sedimentary areas?

Mr. Morrison: I will take note of the last suggestion of my hon. Friend. With regard to the other point, I think that at the right time there is something to be said for the possibility of a discussion on the general question of the Middle East, but I do not think it would be wise to allow ourselves to be diverted from this matter in order to go in for such a discussion at this moment.

Mr. Gammans: Could the Minister say something about the effect of the stopping of oil exports? Can he assure the House that the inconvenience will not fall entirely on this country, but also especially on those countries which have failed to support us in this trouble?

Mr. Morrison: It is perfectly clear that the disadvantage will not fall on this country alone, and that quite a number of other countries will be involved.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: My right hon. Friend says he does not think there would be any advantage in reporting the matter to the Security Council, but in view of the explosive possibilities and the intransigent attitude of the Persian Government, and the fact that we have already referred

the matter on a juridical basis to The Hague Court, would not the proper thing now be to refer it to the United Nations in case of further trouble?

Mr. Morrison: I think the course we have taken is quite in accordance with the principles and commitments into which we have entered in connection with the United Nations—that is to say, we have referred it to the International Court at The Hague—and I am sure that the right thing is to await the decision of The Hague Court.

Major Guy Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman described the situation as well-nigh intolerable. In the next sentence he said that the attitude of the Government remained the same. Is the House to understand that, however intolerable the position becomes, the attitude of the Government will remain the same?

Mr. Blackburn: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the firm stand which he has taken in this matter has the support of the unorthodox Members of the House?

Mr. Eden: If it is in order, I should like to say that at a time like this, in view of all the conditions, this House feels and is grateful for the mood and steadfastness of our people in the oilfields in Iran.

Mr. Morrison: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I quite agree with him and I am glad that expression has been made, I am sure on behalf of the whole House, that we much admire the steadfastness of the British and, indeed, of the other personnel under the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. I will seek to take an opportunity of seeing that that is conveyed to the folk concerned.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask the Foreign Secretary whether, in view of the possibility of a debate next week, he will communicate with the directors of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company asking them to publish the accounts which have been withheld? Is he aware that there is an unfortunate impression that there are larger profits being paid, that 30 per cent. was paid last year, and that if there are bigger profits this year the company should pay some contribution to the cost of the cruiser?

Mr. Morrison: That is not my business.

Mr. Eden: Is it not a fact that the higher the dividend the more the Persians get?

Mr. Harold Davies: That has not been completely true, unfortunately.

Mr. Drayson: Have the Persian Government expressed any views as to the competence of The Hague Court to grant the injunction that was being sought?

Mr. Morrison: I gather that they dispute the competence of the Court to function in this matter, but they nevertheless have put in a document of argument. I do not think, however, that they have entered into oral argument or have given evidence.

Mr. Churchill: Would it not be much better for us to await the imminent decision of The Hague Court upon the injunction?

Mr. Morrison: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is quite right, and I am sure that the House as a whole will agree.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House if he can tell us the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 9TH JULY—Report of the Resolution relating to Gifts to Australia and New Zealand;
Report and Third Reading of the Telephone Bill;
Consideration of Motions for Addresses relating to Double Taxation Relief (Burma) Order; and Shops Act, 1950;
Report and Third Reading of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill.
TUESDAY, 10TH JULY—Report and Third Reading of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Bill;
Consideration of Motion to approve the Draft National Assistant (Determination of Need) Amendment Regulations.
WEDNESDAY, 11TH JULY—Supply (19th Allotted Day); Committee.
It was proposed to have a debate until 7 p.m. on Government policy on rifles for the Army. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence will be making a statement on this matter tomorrow, and I understand that negotiations are taking place through the usual channels as to whether, after that statement has been made, it will be desirable to proceed with this subject next week.
After 7 p.m., a debate on arrears of payments to chemists under the National Health Service.
THURSDAY, 12TH JULY—Supply (20th Allotted Day); Committee;
Debate on Scottish Agriculture.
FRIDAY, 13TH JULY—Committee stage of Navy, Army and Air Expenditure,1949–50;
Second Reading of the Tithe Act (Amendment) Bill [Lords]; and Rag Flock and Other Filling Materials Bill [Lords]; and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolutions.

Mr. Churchill: As at present advised, I cannot see what harm a debate on Wednesday on the policy in regard to the new rifles would have upon any further discussions that may be taking place upon them. At the same time, I think that if that statement is put forward by the Minister of Defence and if that request is made, it is one which we ought to consider, and perhaps, as suggested by the Leader of the House, we may discuss it through the usual channels after the statement has been made public tomorrow. We certainly have got to discuss this matter before Parliament separates.

Mr. Ede: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel that there is no desire indefinitely to postpone this matter, but it might be as well, if it does no harm, perhaps on occasions to try to have a debate that would do some good.

Mr. John Hynd: In view of the fact that to the best of my recollection the last time the House had an opportunity of discussing the foreign affairs in general was in January last, and having in mind the very serious happenings since then, will the Government try to find time, if not next week, as early as possible before the Recess. to have a debate on that subject?

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. I understand that discussions have taken place through the


usual channels with regard to a debate on foreign affairs and that time is being found for it.

Sir Herbert Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Indemnity Bill in connection with Statutory Instrument No. 413 will be introduced and when it will be debated on Second Reading?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir.

Sir H. Williams: It was promised before the end of June, but it has not yet been published.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Can the Leader of the House say whether a day is to be set aside for the discussion of the Beveridge Report on the B. B. C. and when the Government will announce their decision on that Report?

Mr. Ede: Both those things will be announced shortly and a debate will take place before the Recess.

Mr. Nally: My right hon. Friend will, perhaps, recall that he was kind enough three or four weeks ago to say that he would bear in mind the desirability or possibility of having a general debate on the cost of living. In view of the fact that since he was kind enough to say that, there have been several quite serious announcements that have been made by various Departments, all increasing the cost of living, I wonder whether he could give us some indication as to whether it is the intention of the Government to provide time for such a debate in the very near future?

Mr. Ede: It is a subject that I have in mind, but I do not think that at this stage I can say anything beyond what I said before.

Mr. Gammans: Would the Leader of the House say whether, before the House rises for the Recess, the Government propose to give time to discuss the Colombo Plan? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since that Plan first came out there has been no discussion in the House on ii in any shape of form?

Mr. Ede: I could not promise to find time for it in Government time.

Sir Ian Fraser: Has the Leader of the House seen a notice of Motion in the

names of Members of all parties deploring the reduction of railway facilities, especially to seaside resorts, and could he indicate that any opportunity of discussing this matter in the House might arise before this season has passed?

Mr. Ede: I am afraid not.

Sir I. Fraser: Then will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Minister of Transport to do something about it, as we cannot ask Questions on the subject?

Mr. C. S. Taylor: If we have a debate on the rising cost of living, can we be assured that action will not be taken similar to that on 8th March during the debates on the Prayers which dealt with the rising cost of living, and that Members on the Government side will not walk out?

YUGOSLAVIA (ECONOMIC AID)

Mr. H. Morrison: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with that of the House, I desire to make the following statement.
As the House is aware, British, American and French officials recently made certain recommendations to their respective Governments about a coordinated programme of tripartite short-term economic aid to Yugoslavia. These recommendations have now been approved. Subject to confirmation by the respective legislatures, the three Governments intend to make available substantial grants to Yugoslavia for the purchase of raw materials, consumer goods and other essential supplies.
The three Governments attach the greatest importance to strengthening Yugoslav resistance to pressure from the Cominform States, but they have no intention of attaching any political strings to their aid. At the same time, they will make every effort to ensure that it is put to good use. They expect the Yugoslav Government to take all possible measures to keep the amount of foreign aid to a minimum. I understand from recent statements in the Yugoslav Parliament that the Yugoslav Government are fully alive to the necessity for such measures, and, in particular, for an export drive.
The amount of the United Kingdom share of aid to Yugoslavia for the remainder of the financial year ending 31st March, 1952, cannot at present be accurately estimated. It depends on the success of Yugoslavia in balancing her foreign payments. If estimates provided by the Yugoslays prove well founded, the United Kingdom share may be of the order of £10 million.
It is intended to ask the House early this month to give approval in principle to the grant of short-term economic aid to Yugoslavia by agreeing to a supplementary estimate on the Foreign Office Grants and Services Vote for a token sum of £10. A further estimate will be submitted to Parliament in February, 1952, for the amount which it is estimated will be required during the year ending 31st March, 1952, to meet the United Kingdom share of such sums as may be found necessary.
In the interim, it is proposed to have recourse to the Civil Contingencies Fund to meet any necessary expenditure under this head. The total of such payments will be repaid to the Fund, as soon as the February, 1952, estimate has been approved by Parliament. The advantage of this method will be to ensure that, in the light of current estimates, Yugoslavia's immediate needs are met, but that provision will not be made far in advance for funds for Yugoslavia which, in the event, may prove to be unnecessary.
I understand that the French Government will also shortly approach the Assembly and that the United States Government will ask Congress to sanction funds for Yugoslavia within the scope of the comprehensive Foreign Aid Bill now under consideration.

Mr. Eden: While I think the House would generally approve the principle of what has been announced—and I understood the observations of the right hon. Gentleman about political strings—would it not also be right to say that we do look to the Yugoslav Government, in the light of these closer personal relations, to take steadily more steps to put their treatment of those with whom they do not always agree politically, at any rate, nearer the level of those which the Western Democracies try to practise?
May I also ask why—Supply not having been closed—we could not deal with this

this year, and why we should vote it next year? Finally, while I assure the right hon. Gentleman of our support for these proposals, may I ask whether he can give us an undertaking that we shall not be accused of trying to start another war?

Mr. Morrison: On the point about the Estimate, I gather that the difficulty is that we do not know what the sum will be for that period and that is why we cannot very well do it just yet. On the first point, as to developing the institutions of Yugoslava, I do not find myself out of accord with what the right hon. Gentleman has said; indeed, I think there are some encouraging signs.

Mr. Eden: What about the last point?

Mr. Morrison: I am most anxious to be peaceful today.

Mr. Duncan Sandys: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this agreement covers in any way the supply of arms to Yugoslavia, or whether a separate agreement is being concluded on that?

Mr. Morrison: I think it is substantially true to say that in the case of arms supplied some will be purchased by Yugoslavia in the ordinary way.

Mr. Sandys: Out of that money, or not?

Mr. Morrison: I am not sure I think so.

Mr. S. O Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is the boast of Yugoslavia that she has more divisions under arms at this moment than all the rest of the Powers of Western Europe?

Mr. Nigel Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will consider making similar arrangements for financial assistance to Spain, in view of the equal necessity of ensuring the stability and economic well-being of that country?

Mr. Morrison: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. Davies: Why?

Mr. Speaker: This is a matter which deals with Yugoslavia, and not with Spain.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend explain why, if the Yugoslav Gov


ernment is still a Communist Government. the Opposition are giving help and support to a Communist Government?

Mr. Morrison: Why does my hon. Friend go in for these dialectical exercises and try to stir up trouble when all is good will and peace among us?

Mr. Eden: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the policy of the Opposition is to support Governments which wish to pursue peace, regardless of their political colour?

Major Tufton Beamish: Is the Minister aware that the right answer is that hon. Members on this side of the House always put country before party?

Mr. Drayson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in view of the re-armament programme in this country, it is the intention of the Government to give any priority to the delivery of goods to Yugoslavia and also whether technical help is included in this agreement?

Mr. Morrison: I think we have an economic mission in Yugoslavia that is giving all the help it can.

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1949–50

Committee to consider the surpluses and deficits upon Navy, Army and Air Grants for the year ended 31st March, 1950, and the application of surpluses to meet Expenditure not provided for in the Grants for that year, upon Friday, 13th July.

Appropriation Accounts for the Navy, Army and Air Departments [presented 29th January] referred to the Committee. —[Mr. Whiteley.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[18TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1951–52

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a further sum, not exceeding £30, be granted His Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with the Argentine Trade and Payments Agreement, for the year ending on 31st March, 1952, namely: —

Civil Estimates, 1951–52



£


Class I., Vote 4, Treasury and Subordinate Departments
10


Class IX., Vote 3, Ministry of Food
10


Class VI., Vote 1, Board of Trade
10


Total
£30

— [Mr. Douglas Jay.]

Orders of the Day — ARGENTINE TRADE AGREEMENT

3.58 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: We have asked on this day for a debate on the subject of the Protocol to the Argentine Agreement. I had hoped that perhaps the Government would have opened the discussion and explained this rather complicated matter to us. If the Committee has to listen to my explanation instead, it is not particularly my fault, but the speech I make will be really one large question mark.
This Protocol was signed on 23rd April, and reported to the House the next day, and I then said that we would have to look at the matter with care and attention. That is just what we have done and we have deliberately. delayed the debate for two and a half months because at first sight it did not seem a very good Agreement. There were so many clauses and paragraphs left open for further talks, further negotiations, mixed commissions and all the rest of it that we thought it might be better to see whether the Government were making any headway with the outstanding problems, even if they did not conclude them before we brought the matter before the House. Two and a half months have gone by and


we have heard nothing further, and we think it is time to do a bit of probing.
The purpose of a trade agreement, I imagine, is that the two parties want to buy and to sell between themselves, and to bring this about, if there are financial arrangements to be made, they should be agreed upon. The object of the exercise is, to use the modern jargon, "operation mutual trade." The Economic Secretary to the Treasury went out to the Argentine in April to see what could be done.
Incidentally, it was a most inept time to have chosen because it was just before Easter, when everybody takes a holiday and in some countries longer holidays than in others. Secondly, it was at a time when there was no ambassador there, Sir John Balfour having just left his post on transfer and the new ambassador was not yet functioning. However, the hon. Gentleman certainly, according to Press reports, had to work very hard and had many late-night sittings, a fitting preparation for his later experiences on the Finance Bill.
But he came back, and the Chancellor and the Minister of Food both made statements on 24th April, because the Agreement covered two different fields. On that occasion one of the hon. Gentlemen behind the Government complained that we had not offered any congratulations to the hon. Gentleman. I thought we had better wait to see whether congratulations were deserved before we started issuing the bouquets. I am not yet quite certain whether they are. All praise to the hon. Gentleman for his own hard work; that I concede, and thank him for what he did personally. But hard work by the Economic Secretary does not necessarily get translated into a good agreement for Great Britain.
This Protocol we are discussing—that is the technical name for it—is really a supplement to the Agreement of 27th June, 1949, and that itself was the third trade agreement between this country and the Argentine since the war. I must just go over the background as briefly as possible. There was the Eady-Miranda Agreement which lasted from September, 1946, to February, 1948; the Andes Agreement from February, 1948. to March, 1949, and further negotiations, and the third Agreement of June, 1949,

to which this document, of April, 1951, is the Protocol. The Eady-Miranda Agreement failed in the end, because it was hopelessly shaken by the convertibility crisis of 1947. That really wrecked it and led to the next negotiation, which ended with the Andes Agreement.
That Agreement failed for two reasons. Although the Argentine got the goods we had promised to help her to get under that Agreement, she fell into arrears of something like 70,000 tons in her meat contract and claimed the right to cancel it. We were in a very weak position because we had paid for this meat in advance. That was a very foolish thing to do, and the Opposition have criticised it in the House before. When they failed to fulfil the contract, we were in some difficulty in the argument, but eventually the Andes Agreement was replaced by the 1949 Agreement. Here we got the arrears of 70,000 tons with which we had not been supplied, but of course at an enhanced price.
Later on, during the currency of that Agreement, which was going along fairly well, we complained that the Argentine were not honouring the financial clauses and that the import licences for the import into that country of British goods were not being given on a reasonable scale. I hope I am not wearying the Committee with this background, but I am sure the Government will take me up if I fall into any error. In reply, the Argentine said, "Oh, but look at the result of devaluation." So there was a deadlock. Then, in July, just a year ago, all shipments of Argentine meat stopped. And there the matter rested. It was taken up again, and the upshot of that is this Protocol.
I will deal with three points separately. There is the financial part of the Agreement, there is the question of what we have undertaken to send to the Argentine, and there is the question of what the Argentine have undertaken to send to us. On the financial point—and, after all, finance is the lubricant of trade, if nothing else—I quote from the statement of the Chancellor on 24th April:
We have agreed to pay £10½ million as a compromise settlement of the exchange guarantees. For their part, the Argentine Government have undertaken to allow the transfer of the arrears of remittances. The Agreement provides, as a matter of mutual


convenience, that the sum of £10½ million which we pay shall be put into a special account and used only"—
that is to say by the Argentine Government—
for the payment of arrears of remittances.
That, of course, has been one of the matters in dispute, that they have not been sending to this country the money owing to it. That is settled, but it must be understood that, as a result of this settlement, we have conceded the argument about the £10½ million. We find that the £10½ million, and, in fact, the remittances, are not, in effect, being paid by the Argentine at all but by the British taxpayers. But that is one of the points of the settlement.
On the question of future trade, another settlement was made, and again I quote from the Chancellor:
…we have agreed to make sterling credits available to the Argentine, if required, up to a limit of £20 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 24th April, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 217–8.]
But, if the limit rises above £20 million, the Argentine have the right to be paid the excess over the £20 million, should they so desire it, in other currency, including dollars. I do not wish to expand this argument, because it might not be entirely tactful to do so, but that seems to me to be a dangerous proposition, as it looks a possible way by which they could get dollars. I am sure that is not intended, but I can imagine ways and means by which it could be used for that purpose. That is all that was settled on the financial side.
Now I come to what was not settled, and here I must quote something which we heard in the debate on 8th February about meat. The Minister of Food defended himself about the negotiations not having fructified by saying:
We went into these negotiations not merely to settle the price of meat but also to clear up a number of important points of dispute between our two countries. For example, there were the Argentine undertakings about certain financial remittances to British citizens —does not the Opposition care about that?"—
I do not know why that uncalled-for remark was made—
obligations such as pensions to British ex-railway employees; the very important question to private traders of the import of British goods in the less essential class."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February. 1951; Vol. 483, c. 1968]

and so on. If at that time the Minister thought those things very important, one would have expected that when the April negotiations took place they would have been settled; but, far from being settled, some of them are not even mentioned at all. The right hon. Gentleman speaks about wanting to clear up the obligations, such as the pensions to British ex-railway employees. There is not a word of that anywhere. Article 13, it is true, says that the Argentine intention is to promote a settlement as soon as possible of various problems arising out of the transfer to the Argentine of public utility companies, that is to say, gas and tramways. That is all; we hear no more.
The other business about permits for British private traders for the import of British goods into the Argentine again is left by the Agreement completely in the air. All that Article 9 says is that a mixed consultative committee is to do what it can about it. That is why we have waited two and a half months to see whether anything has happened. Has anything been done about the moneys for the gas and tramway undertakings? Has anything happened to increase the import licences for British trade? I and my hon. Friends are anxious about that, because we find that other people are getting anxious. Only last week the financial writer in the "Manchester Guardian" was saying, on 26th June:
British exporters are beginning to tear the worst about the recent trade … agreement with Argentina…Now that Argentina has been promised a sterling credit if its balances run down and the facility of changing sterling into dollars if they grow too large, it is difficult to understand what is causing the delay.
There is still no sign of the licences being issued. I hope the Government can tell us something about that, because that is a very important part of the financial problem.
So, on the purely financial consideration of this—I will speak later on about the price we had to pay for the meat—only two things were settled, and everything else was left in the air. What was settled was, first of all, that we should find the £10½ million out of which the payments were to be made, and the sterling balances of £20 million may or may not turn up to our ultimate advantage. That is the financial side.
Now I come to the question of what we undertake to do by the Agreement. Under


Article 9 and the Schedule we propose to make available—that is a pretty firm commitment—4,000,000 tons of oil. As things have turned out since with regard to British oil, that may be rather difficult, but I am sure that every endeavour will be made by the Government to see that that is implemented. Secondly, in the letter attached to this document the Government intend to use their best endeavours to make available a quantity of 500.0000 tons of coal. I hope that will be within the capacity of the Government to fulfil.
It must be rather galling, of course, to the Argentinians when they remember that before the war they used to get from us 2 million tons of coal. Not only that, but I remember well when I was at the Mines Department, the trade, under the aegis of that Department, was constantly sending people out to South America to try to induce them to buy more coal. What is more, in those days they were getting the coal at a quarter of the price they have to pay today. In those days we were exporting a million tons a week. It is a very different picture now. I therefore hope that it will be within the capacity of the Government to fulfil that.

Mr. Paget: Mr. Paget (Northampton) rose—

Captain Crookshank: No, I cannot give way.
My third point concerns tinplate. Here the Government have undertaken, again using their best endeavours, to send 27,000 long tons of tinplate. Now that is one of the scarce materials, and we can only hope that that undertaking on our part is linked up with the imports of 30,000 tons of canned corned beef that we hope to get during the year. Here I might as well remind the Government that two years ago the Argentine got, I think I am right in saying, 16,000 tons of tinplate from us. For the first six months of last year, we did not get a single pound of meat from them, although they took from us 32,500 tons of tinplate—a great deal more than we are undertaking to give them this year. It is also a fact that last year a record amount of corned beef was exported by the Argentine to the United States, so that our tinplate was no doubt instrumental in earning them dollars.
Fourthly, there will be such other exports from this country as can be

brought within the system of the export licences of the Argentine. But, as I have said—and I have quoted the "Manchester Guardian" supporting me—there is very little sign of anything happening yet, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to help me and the Committee on that problem.
That is our part of the bargain. What is theirs? Well, the two vital things are feedingstuffs and meat. Here we come, as so often, to a very curious fact. Feeding-stuffs do not seem to have been mentioned anywhere at any time. Or if they were, it was behind closed doors. There is nothing about feedingstuffs in the Protocol. There was nothing about feeding-stuffs in the speech of either the Chancellor or the Minister of Food. Yet that was one of the most important parts of the previous Agreement, because we used to depend to a considerable extent upon Argentine feedingstuffs, especially maize.
Let me again remind the House—I am sorry to be so expository, but on this occasion I am taking the place of the Minister—that under the 1949 Agreement, in the first year we were to receive from the Argentine £20 million worth of maize, £3 million worth of barley, oats and other grains, and £10 million worth of oilcake. That was the Agreement. We certainly did not get anything of the kind.
It is very hard to find out what we did get, but according to the best of my researches, during the first year of the Agreement—that is to say, from July, 1949, to July, 1950—in the first six months we got no maize at all—nought; in the second six months we got £4,300,000 worth. That is to say, we got £4,300,000 instead of the £20 million in the Agreement. I think that must be right, although I admit that the Trade and Navigation Accounts are very confusing, because for the first six months of 1949—that is to say, before the Agreement—according to those accounts we imported in value £13,766,663, whereas for the whole year we are shown as getting £13,766,267—£396 worth less than we are shown as getting in the first six months. I cannot reconcile those figures in any way. The fact remains that during the last six months of 1949 we got nothing, and we got under £4½million in the first six months of 1950. That was a very different result from the promised £20 million worth.
As for barley, oats and other grains, we got nothing at all: nought, nought, nought, every single month. As for oil-cake, there again the Trade and Navigation Accounts do not help us—although possibly they help the Government—because they do not break up the imports into different countries, so we do not know what we got from the Argentine as compared with what we got from anywhere else. But they do give the grand total for those 12 months as just over £10 million, and I think it is extremely doubtful that we imported all of that from the Argentine and not £1 worth from anywhere else. If the right hon. Gentleman has any idea what we did import from the Argentine of the £10 million worth promised in the 1949 Agreement, we should like to know. I am quite certain that we did not get £10 million worth, because that is all we got from everywhere.
Now this is a very serious matter from the point of view of British agriculture—very serious—and we should like to know what, if anything, is in view about it. So far, we have had no evidence that the matter was raised, and certainly not that any agreement was reached, because there is nothing about it in the Protocol. We do know from the trade information that there are something like 2,000,000 tons of maize available for export. Let us hope that we get some of it, although we know that other countries are also in the market.
The other important thing we hoped to get out of this Agreement was meat. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, but we shall not get as much in tons as we expected in 1949, because the Agreement gives us 200,000 tons of carcase meat and 30,000 tons of corned beef, plus what may be offered. That is only rather more than half the 1949 figure, because then there was a firm figure of 300,000 tons and an optimum of 400,000 tons. Of course, it is true that the Argentine are eating more meat in their own country; that their export last year was only 19 per cent. of their production of meat, whereas before the war it was 30 per cent.
But we on this side of the Committee are still of the opinion, as we have said many time before, that if we had a more efficient buying system it is more than

likely that more meat would be extracted out of the Argentine home market into the export trade, because there is plenty of evidence to show that, while the consumption in that country has gone up enormously, a lot of it is what, at any rate by European standards, is very wasteful consumption. So much for quantity. We shall not get anything like as much as we should have got under the Agreement of 1949.
Then we come to the price story. This is one of the most tangled bits of the jungle I have had to make my way through in the last few days; I hope that the Committee will excuse me if I give what I think is the correct version. Certainly, if it is not correct, it is not through any lack on my part of trying to get it right. Under the 1949 Agreement the price was to be £97 10s. Last summer the Argentine thought that they could get more and they started negotiations, and they began them by asking for £140, but—and this is a very important "but" —and I take all this from information given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 8th February—they were prepared to go on receiving £97 10s. pending an Agreement.
What did the Government do? There were rising prices; the Argentine were asking a very large increase. The Government calmly said, "Oh, no, we are not going to pay £97 10s. We will offer you £90"—much less than the Argentine were already getting, and much less than, at any rate they thought, they were entitled to. The result was that the Argentine cut off shipments; and they cut off shipments not because we were refusing to pay £140—that was a negotiable figure—but because we declined to go on paying £97 10s., which was the figure of the 1949 Agreement. Well, that was a rather difficult thing for the Government to get away with.
Later on, the Chancellor said:
We were prepared to go up to £97 10s.
To go up to ! But that was where it was supposed to be. On that I do not think it was surprising—I am looking at it as impartially as I can, as a matter between people who wanted to negotiate —that the Argentine stiffened. They got rather bored with us, for all I know. Anyhow, they still said "No meat," and all the summer went by.
In the winter the Government thought they had better do something about it. so they started tentative negotiations. They had only two meetings, but—and I am again quoting the Chancellor—on 27th December the Argentine came forward with an offer of £120 per ton. The Chancellor said:
Nothing less than an average price of £120 was open to discussion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT: 8th February, 1951; Vol. 483, c.
2061]
That was the Argentine's offer on 27th December, and the Government, of course, refused it. Indeed, in the debate of 8th February the Minister of Food was very loquacious on the subject, saying that of course we could not possibly accept anything like that; that our negotiations with Argentina covered only one sector of the cost of living; that it was a battle and a battle the Government had been fighting; that it was the house- wives' battle; £120 a ton, indeed! Quite out of the question. And straight away the Labour Party began their pamphlets and all their propaganda. and here is a summary:
We refuse to pay more than £104.
I do not know where that figure came in quite.
Argentina refuses to yield and asks £120. There is no just reason for asking prices as high as she does. It would he wrong to give in. It is only by holding out, even if it means going without meat for a time "—
well, we have gone with pretty poor rations for a considerable time—
that we can improve prices for the future.
There it was. The Government were pinning to the mast the statement, "No £120 a ton—shocking."
Then what happened? Out goes the Economic Secretary to the Argentine, and he makes an Agreement, and anybody can work out for himself from the Report that the average price that we are now going to pay is £128 12s. That was against £120, which was the subject of the "battle of the housewives." That was against the £120 which was offered on 27th December. Presumably we need never have had this miserable small ration if we had clinched the Agreement then. But no, the Government were not going to concede anything. Now the Government who were not going to concede anything have to pay £128 12s.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) cross-examined the Minister of Food on 24th April about this discrepancy, the right hon. Gentleman made the most extraordinary statement of many odd ones in this jungle when he said:
In fact no precision was ever given to the alleged offer of £120 a ton. That is rather a mythical figure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 225.]
And he still wags his head and agrees. Of course, £120 appears in this Labour propaganda. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman likes to tell me that I can describe all Labour propaganda as being a myth, I should be inclined to agree with him, but I find it very difficult to do so if he tells me that I have got to consider the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a myth; because it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer—no one else—who told us that the offer of £120 was made.
So there it is. Anyhow, the result of the expedition to the Argentine by the Economic Secretary is that that offer of £120 has gone, and we have closed at £128 12s.—nominal.

Mr. Paget: Mr. Paget rose—

Captain Crookshank: Oh, no. I am nearly through the jungle now, and I do not want to get into any other difficulty until I get out of this gloomy purview—because it is gloomy for the supporters of the Government. I say £128 12s. nominal for the reason—

Mr. Paget: On the average.

Captain Crookshank: But still nominal. That is what I am talking about, because Letter No. 1 attached to the Protocol says that the Government agree to pay to the Argentine a sum of £6,250,000. That is the total and final adjustment of prices for meat shipped earlier. We have got to add that £6,250,000 to something some time somewhere. Obviously, the people who bought and ate the meat shipped earlier are not going to be called upon to make little bits of contributions towards the £6,250,000. This £6,250,000 has got to be paid some time in the future, and, of course, it is directly connected with the meat episode.
I must say that no commercial transaction, as opposed to purely political transactions, would ever have considered such a suggestion as this enormous back


payment. I want to know how it is going to be paid. Unless some wonderful amortisation plan is in the mind of the Government, it can only be paid—and it has got to be paid—by this country as taxpayers or meat eaters. If it is added to the other expenses of meat secured at £128 12s. nominal under this Agreement, that brings the actual figure up to the region of £160 a ton. I think we must take it into account. I presume it will come into the trading accounts of the Ministry of Food. If it is not added to the price of the meat, it has presumably to be taken off some part of the food subsidies on something else; some other commodity is going to cost more because meat is going to cost £6,250,000 more for devaluation.
That £128 12s. nominal, or £160 per ton if we take account of this devaluation payment, compares with £97 10s. two years ago, and the fatuous offer of £90 at this time last year by the Government and an offer of £120 in December—

Mr. Shurmer: Plus what?

Captain Crookshank: Plus absolutely nothing. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will go and do his plussing in Birmingham instead of here. It is amazing; but if the hon. Gentleman charges his memory, he will remember that last time I spoke about meat on 8th February I produced facts and figures equally amazing to him; but they were also equally true.
Now, I do not say, of course, that present conditions are such that we could possibly have hoped to have had the same price as two years ago. The whole basis of world prices has altered. I am not saying anything of the kind. But I do say this, by means of a quotation from "The Times" at a time just after the Government made their statement:
Not often does a trader after the breaking off of negotiations pay so much more money for so much less meat.
We are to get a great deal of meat, I have no doubt, in the immediate future. I have a quotation here from a letter of a manager in the Argentine, who said, in May:
The meat agreement has at last been signed. So far prices have dropped mostly

because everybody is scared of the winter and are selling off as hard as they can go.
I imagine that we shall get fairly soon a large proportion of the 200,000 tons of carcase meat expected during the year.
I have a question to ask the Government. Have they—it seems hardly likely but one must ask in a matter of form —taken any precautions should that occur, because in the winter of 1949–50 we had to hire 15 ocean-going vessels for the storage of Argentine meat and meat from other countries because there was not enough storage here. That cost us £609,208, just through lack of foresight. I hope that that lesson has been learned and that perhaps in between times something has been done to increase the storage capacity should we have a great rush of carcase meat.
Of course, we ought to be getting a lot of canned meat because the Government said some time ago that they were very anxious to increase our strategic reserves, but according to the Press all that we are getting at present is carcase meat. The next thing that will happen is that the meat ration will increase considerably. That is bound to occur because if we have all this meat coming from the Argentine coinciding with the flush of home-killed meat, we should obviously be able to get back at least to the ration of a year ago, but it will not be at a price of 1s. 8d. for the same amount of meat. I do not know whether it will be 2s., 2s. 3d. or what the figure will be, but it will obviously be more expensive But it may be that we shall get as much meat as we did 12 months ago.
On the farms quite soon the people will be thinking of fattening up the geese for Michaelmas, a season when goose is a very popular form of food. Likewise I must warn them that the Government are probably thinking of fattening up the electors for the Michaelmas election, but they will find that that trick will not work. The housewives have far too vivid a memory of what they have to put up with on that subject.
That really is the story about meat so far as I have been able to disentangle it. I am not saying for a moment that we could have hoped to have got the meat we wanted at the price of two years ago, but I do not think that the Government have made a very good Agreement here.
At the time that the "housewife's battle" was being fought about £120 per ton, the battle that is now lost, we were told—in February—by the Minister of Food, that:
Our fault, if it be a fault, is simply that we believed that the great and proud country of Great Britain was prepared to stand up to Argentina."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 1977.]
So did everybody. We hoped that they would, but they collapsed like a pack of cards.
So, unless the Government can in the end make out a good case for this Agreement, we shall continue to say that it was not one of the best solutions of the problem, because while the latter part of my speech has been about meat, I hope that the Committee will not forget what I said about feedingstuffs—about maize and oil cake—and about the financial provisions. We in this country all wish to have good relations with the Argentine. We want to restore our mutual trade to the fullest possible dimensions, and we want to sweep away such obstacles as there are on both sides, should they be on both sides.
The point is whether this Agreement will do it. I have grave doubts. The financial part is still unsettled. If all the bits are tidied up nicely according to the way we should like them to be, that will be an improvement, but our people's grievance about feedingstuffs and meat will not have been fully met. On the other hand, we pledge ourselves to send out scarce things. I do not think it is remarkable that the summing up of this agreement, published by the "Economist," was as follows—I think it was right. They said of the Agreement:
As a monument to the miscalculations, political vanities and sheer administrative follies of government trading, the AngloArgentine agreement of 23rd April, 1951, will be hard to excel; let the proponents of government trading advance, if they can, a single point of advantage that this country has gained from it.
Can the proponents of State trading—the Government—today expound to us such points as they think are an advantage which we have gained from this Agreement? I shall be interested, as will my hon. and right hon. Friends, to hear the explanation which Ministers are to give. But I am afraid—I cannot help it, because I have had previous experience—that we shall find that it is just one more case of inefficiency and muddle.

4.36 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Edwards): I am very glad to have this opportunity today to report to the Committee on the Mission to the Argentine which I had the honour to lead, and which resulted in the Protocol now before us, which I signed on behalf of the Government on 23rd April. I think that it was on the whole right that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for Gainsborough (Captain Crook-shank) should open this debate, because the field is a vast one, and it is more convenient that I should deal with the matters that appear to him to be of the greatest concern rather than that I should have tried to forecast what he wanted to know.
This was the first time that a Member of the Government had visited the Argentine for many years, certainly since long before the war. One result of that was that a good deal of the negotiation was done in private session, particularly between myself and the Minister of Economy (Dr. Ares), to whom I would now pay a very great tribute for his unfailing courtesy and the courtesy of his officials to all our Mission.
I should also like to express in public my gratitude first to the members of the Mission, who all worked very hard, and to the representatives of the Bank of England, who attended the Mission as well as the officials of the Ministry of Food and the Treasury: to our permanent food mission in Buenos Aires: and to His Majesty's Ambassador and the whole of the staff of the Embassy, who serviced us so well during the whole of these discussions.
This Agreement is often described as a Meat Agreement indeed the right hon. and gallant Gentleman so described it. It is, of course, a much wider affair, and as I approached this task it seemed to me that the pre-eminent requirement was that we should do everything we could to improve the climate of economic and political opinion in which our trade with the Argentine was conducted. If I had any doubt about that in prospect, I certainly had no doubt when I had met the leaders of the British community in the Argentine, which I believe is the largest British community in the world. I must say that I formed a high opinion of those who led them, and I am grateful to them for their help.
It seemed to me that if we were to avoid our trade with the Argentine degenerating into nothing much more than the exchange of meat for oil, it was imperative that we should try to dispel the fog of past misunderstanding and try to resolve as many as possible of the outstanding disputes. To do this meant a radical revision of the 1949 Agreement and the suspension of some of its clauses.
I understand the current anxieties to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred. I share the anxieties about the delays that have been occurring, but I would put on record my own opinion that this is not to be attributed to ill will on the part of the Argentine Government, but solely to the fact that they have a highly centralised machine. Its administrative working is very slow, and, as I shall explain in a few moments about import licences, they have a system which really means that they have to try to settle the whole programme before they issue any licences. It may be wrong for them to have such a system, but I believe that that is the explanation.
I shall now say something about meat, although my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food will deal with that matter in more detail. Naturally enough, meat loomed large, and it was very much the matter to which public and Parliamentary interest was directed. First of all, it was quite clear that no business could be done at all unless the outstanding dispute about the price to be paid in settlement of the meat shipped under provisional invoices during the period January to July, 1950, were cleared up, and we finally settled it by the payment of £6,250,000 in full and final settlement of those provisional invoices.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Was it only for the period "January to July, or was it from the time of devaluation, 18th September, 1949, to July, 1950?

Mr. Edwards: I think that it was substantially for the period I have mentioned, but there may have been provisional invoices from before that time.
There has been a good deal of discussion about average prices. While I have every sympathy with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in going through this tangle of figures, I would say that we really must compare like with like if we

are to reach any valid conclusions. As I understood it, he was comparing the average price of £120 with the figure of £128, which I think was mentioned by one of my right hon. Friends on 24th April. But clearly we are not there comparing like with like.

Captain Crookshank: Why were we not?

Mr. Edwards: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says, "Why were we not?" I do not believe we are in a position to compare like with like because the £120 offer was on a basis which was never thoroughly elucidated owing to the fact that the negotiations broke down after the second meeting.
The figure of £128 was on the basis of the minimum quantities laid down in the Agreement. But I would say to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and to the Committee that those of us on both sides who negotiated in Argentina were agreed that the conception of an average price which had dominated earlier negotiations was no longer suitable, and that it would be better to negotiate basic or pilot prices for the meat. The average price will depend on how much meat and what type of meat we get. If we get a higher proportion of chilled beef, we shall have a higher average price.
While I understand the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's desire to make these comparisons, I cannot accept them as valid because, in order to have a valid comparison, we should at the end of the year have to work out the average to see what it was in respect of those parts of the contract which could be related to the old contract—namely, the frozen meat and other parts, but excluding chilled beef—and see what the result was.
I think that the proposal to resume the traditional trade in chilled beef is most significant and important. Our offer to take as much chilled beef as Argentina could supply for the whole of the remaining period of the 1949 Agreement did, I am sure, excite the imagination of all those concerned with the matter in Argentina. The detailed technical discussions have now been concluded, and it is our hope that at least something like a quarter of the beef received under the Protocol will be in the form of chilled beef.
I believe that the resumption of this trade in chilled beef at the highest possible level is of the first importance. It has manifest advantages to the Argentine, and I am sure that on our side it is worth while paying a premium for this type of meat if by so doing we can return more nearly to pre-war standards and have a larger proportion of better quality and more palatable meat on the ration. We are anxious, therefore, to receive as much chilled beef as possible.
I concede that the overall quantities of meat guaranteed to us under the Agreement are lower than we would have liked and less than we received in the years immediately, after the war The reduction, as the right hon. And gallant Gentleman pointed out, is in part due to the fact that the Argentines them selves are eating more of the meat they produce. But it is also very largely due to the very severe drought which occurred in 1949–50 and which led to a decline in the cattle available for the meat trade, and, to some lesser extent, to the not un-natural desire of the Argentine Government to sell some of their meat to other countries at higher prices than we are paying. The quantities are, however, minimum quantities, and I hope that they will be exceeded both in respect of carcass and canned meat during the period of the Protocol.
The Argentine negotiators wished, first of all, to sell to us on a spot basis, but we finally persuaded them to have a fixed minimum figure put into the contract which should run for one year. I am sure that was the right thing to do in all the circumstances. It has given an element of stability and confidence which, coupled with our undertaking to accept chilled will, I hope, stimulate production and result in increased supplies in future years.
It has been suggested that if we had a different system of buying, all would be well. I find that hard to accept. May I remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman of what his right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) said in the debate on 8th February? He said:
We must recognise that this very day if we want to trade with the Argentine we have to trade through a bulk selling agency, known as I. A. P. I., and, whether we like it or not, that bulk selling agency exists."—[OFFICIAL

REPORT, 8th February, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 2052.]
And with those words he dismissed the remarks made from this side of the House about the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite to bulk trading.
Even if we had a system of private purchase of spot amounts, short contracts, and the like, it would still be State selling on the part of Argentina. Whatever form of trade we had, the Argentine Government would, I am absolutely certain, always insist that they should negotiate quantities of meat against quantities of oil and other things which they need. The needs of Argentina are quite clear, and in my view—and I am in some position to say this, I believe—I think it extremely unlikely that they would ever give up what, after all, is their very strong suit when talking about essential supplies.
As I have said, my right hon. Friend' the Minister of Food will have more to say about meat, and I must now turn to the other matters raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. First of all, may I take the question of financial agreements, the matter dealt with in Article 10? This really falls into two groups. First, there are the remittances which should have been cleared in 1949 and then there are the remittances which accumulated between June, 1949, and August, 1950, in which month the Central Bank issued a new circular under which current remittances are merged. The first group of remittances, up to 1949, amounted to something like £7½ million. This is a kind of progress report and I am able to tell the Committee that almost all those remittances—that is the pre-1949 remittances—have been cleared.
For the second group, the Central Bank invited applications by 4th June. Those applications are being examined and my information is that the Bank expect to begin to issue the first permits in respect of the second lot of remittances in a week or two. It should be noted, in passing, that these remittances are not subject to the 5 per cent, limitation on profits which applies by the Central Bank circular of August, 1950,. to all remittances by any nationals.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Can the Minister tell us what is the total sum of the second lot of remittances?

Mr. Edwards: I am sorry, but I do not know it. I cannot really give a figure. but in some days' time I may be in a better position to give some sort of figure. My case is that the total amount of remittances involved is in fact higher than the sum paid in respect of the revaluation guarantee but I cannot give the precise figure.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: As I understood, the pre-1949 arrears amounted to £7½ million and there is only £6¼ million to meet this. Where are the post-1949 payments to come from?

Mr. Edwards: I think the right hon. Gentleman is thinking in terms of the £6½ million and not the revaluation guarantee. I shall have more to say about it in a moment and I will give some details. The current arrears are not dealt with in the 1951 Protocol.
As I said, the Central Bank circular of August, 1950, placed a 5 per cent. limitation on the remittable profits of all companies. I pointed out during the negotiations, on a number of occasions, that I thought this restriction was incompatible with the Argentine's desire to attract foreign capital and that in their own interests they would be well advised to permit unrestricted remittances of all invisible payments as soon as their foreign exchange position made it possible for them to do so. I am sure that is right, and I hope that an improvement in the Argentine's sterling position will in due course make it so, and that we shall get a further lifting of restrictions which at the moment apply to all nationals in respect of the circular to which I have referred.
There was one particular point about arrears, to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gains-borough referred, and about which I ought to say something. That is the position of the pensioners. There was nothing about which I felt more keenly and which roused my emotions more during the whole of the negotiations than this matter. The amount of money involved was trifling—not more than £150,000 a year. It was not really a foreign exchange matter because the position was that, in order to draw their pensions, the ex-employees of the railways and of certain other undertakings had to have a permit to reside abroad and those were issued at two-year intervals and had to be renewed.
This meant that, because the Argentine in October, 1949, had stopped renewing permits, we had pensioners here in England in difficult circumstances because they could not draw their pensions, and pensioners in the Argentine who could not come here to spend the evening of their lives because they could not obtain a permit, and if they could get home could not get their pensions. I am sure the Committee will agree that this was an issue on which we should all wish to make our views emphatically known. Therefore, I went into this matter with great care. Some of the hon. Friends of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough have been in communication with us and long before this date I passed on to his hon. Friends full information about this matter as well as to the pensioners and their associations and everybody else concerned.
It was one of the primary objects of my negotiations to secure redress for these railwaymen, and I secured from the Argentine Government their undertaking to consider, as they put it, favourably, a periodical renewal of permits that had expired and the issue of permits to retired employees who had not received them. All the relevant information has been collected by the Embassy. It has all been put to the Minister of Labour in Buenos Aires and I heard only today that it was expected very soon now that the permits would begin to flow out to the pensioners. That is a small matter, but I think one of some importance and significance.
I should like to say a word about commercial arrears, although they are not dealt with in the Protocol. A good deal had been done in respect of commercial arrears before negotiations started. I think something like £3½ million had been paid out. However, I did receive assurances that all necessary steps would be taken by the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Public Works so that the remittances should be effected at the earliest possible moment. The Ministry of Transport arrears are now practically up-to-date. That is to say, since we came back there have been clearances. But there are still some arrears outstanding on behalf of ships and dredgers which I hope will be cleared before long. I understand there is no foreign exchange problem here. It is a problem of the Department concerned instructing the Central Bank to make remittances.
Mention was made of public utilities. I should make it clear to the Committee that we are here concerned with highly complicated matters concerning two companies, the Primitiva Gas Company and Anglo-Argentine Tramways. One of these matters is before the courts and the other involves considerations concerning the liquidation of the Transport Commission. It would have been quite impossible to attempt to settle the matter; nor was it, I think, expected of me by anyone concerned in the course of the negotiations which I conducted. My business was to try to improve the atmosphere and to get the Argentine Government to move and, in the nature of things, I could not have done anything else.
That is why I thought it important to get the clause in the Protocol in order that the Argentine Government should be on record in this matter as really trying to get something done. But I do not think the companies themselves ever expected that this matter, which had not been raised in the 1949 discussions, should be really settled inter-governmentally. I saw representatives of the companies concerned and I did my best to help the negotiations.
I am sorry that this is perhaps a little turgid, but this document covers such a wide field and I must spend a little time talking about the revaluation guarantee. Under Article 11 of the protocol we agree to pay, and the Argentine Government agree to accept, a sum of £10½ million in full and final settlement of all claims under the guarantee. This matter, I think, was attacked by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and there has been sonic comment about it in the Press. Perhaps, therefore, I ought to make our position plain.
We were advised by our legal advisers that they would expect a domestic tribunal, a tribunal such as a high court or an experienced commercial arbitrator, to find in our favour, but that there were certain ambiguities in the language of the documents and we could not be certain to win before a tribunal of our own choice, let alone before the sort of international tribunal which might have been acceptable to the Argentinians. They therefore advised that we should be justified in entering into a compromise settlement.
In spite of this legal advice, we could have fought the case before an indepen

dent tribunal and paid whatever sum, if any, was awarded by the tribunal. It was clear to me, however, that in the absence of the settlement of the guarantee dispute, we could not have hoped to have secured a settlement of other questions, particularly financial remittances, commercial arrears and railway pensions, in which we had claims against Argentina. We might have been able to negotiate a fresh meat contract because that would have been in Argentina's interest as well as ours. We could certainly not be prepared to wait for a resumption of trade at the higher level by settling all the major disputes between the two countries. In other words, although we could have fought this, although it could have been a matter for legal dispute, if we had dealt with it in that way we would not have been able to settle any of the other things. The effect on our trade would have been to depress it and for the stagnation to have continued.
I admit that £10½ million was more than I originally thought would be sufficient to compromise the case, and it was certainly more than we would have liked to pay. On the other hand, considering everything that was involved—nothing less than the future of our trading relations with the Argentine—I think the compromise settlement was not unreasonable.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman implied that there was a connection between the amount of the revaluation guarantee payment and the arrears. It is perfectly true that we have had the revaluation guarantee payment put into a separate account, but it is purely a matter of mutual convenience that the revaluation guarantee payment is to be used for the payment of arrears. The total of financial arrears—I cannot be precise—I think is in excess of the figure of £10½ million. Therefore, there are no grounds for supposing that the settlement figure was determined by the amount of financial arrears.
I turn now to Article 12. The payments provisions of the 1949 Agreement follow the usual sterling payments agreement model. In the 1951 negotiations the Argentine objectives were, first of all, to try to obtain facilities for temporary borrowing of sterling to see her through those months when, owing to the seasonal nature of her export trade, she


tends to be short. In support of this the difficulties experienced in the past from seasonal shortages were pointed out to us, and it was argued that just as Argentina had held large sterling balances during the war, so now the United Kingdom should reciprocate by lending sterling to meet Argentina's seasonal need.
Their second objective was to secure some safeguard against the risk of again accumulating not fully convertible sterling. In support of this she argued, I think perfectly reasonably, that in present conditions of shortage she had no alternative but to use her exports to buy essentials in those markets where they could be obtained, and that she could not afford to accumulate balances of not fully convertible sterling. I accept that view. I think it is essential that Argentina should be able to spend what she earns, and I think it is inevitable that if she cannot buy what she wishes from us, at some point in order to avoid accumulating sterling balances one must provide for the possible contingency of the need to go out into other currencies.
The result of the discussion was Article 12, and the provisions of this Article, together with Articles 9 and 2 of the 1949 Agreement, are to be looked upon as a regulating convenant. The two Governments re-affirmed the objective of the balance in sterling payments. If the net balance rises above £20 million the United Kingdom agrees to transfer the excess either to third countries agreeable to the Governments concerned, or, failing the agreement, into dollars. When the net balance falls below £20 million the United Kingdom is entitled to recapture any dollars so transferred. At the other end of the scale, when Argentine sterling balances are insufficient to meet payments due to the scheduled territories, the United Kingdom Government will make sterling available to the Argentine up to £20 million.
I think these provisions will allow greater flexibility in trade and in payments between our two countries. It should be unnecessary, for example, for the Argentines to cut import licences or to restrict remittances on the ground that they are temporarily short of sterling, because by this arrangement they can draw under the credit facilities provided for. On the other hand, it is unnecessary

for us, subject of course to the probability of a balance over the year as a whole, to refrain from making urgent purchases at the appropriate time in the fear that the net working balance will be temporarily exceeded.
I hope we shall be able to achieve and maintain general equilibrium, but there is no advantage to either country to be out of balance in this field of payments. That leads me to point out the very great need in that connection for doing our best to expand our exports to Argentina of the things she needs. I must come to grips with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on one point where I thought he was less than fair. It is no use looking at this Procotol without reference to the Agreement of 1949. Under the Agreement of 1949 we undertook to facilitate the supply in 1949–50 of all the commodities covered by schedules 2 and 4 in that Agreement, and, subject to previous annual review, to continue to facilitate as far as we could supplies to Argentina of at least the annual amount put down in those schedules.
Except in the case of meat there was no similar obligation on the part of Argentina. We suspended for 12 months the trade schedules, and we provided that the Mixed Consultative Committee set up under the 1949 Agreement should continue the review of the Anglo-Argentine trade which we had started while we were there; but pending that review both Governments agreed to give all facilities for the continuance of traditional trade.
Here is the point that I would like the right hon. Gentleman to take. Our commitments now are very much less than they were under the 1949 Agreement. When I see comments, as I have done, in the Press about these onerous obligations that we have undertaken, I can only suppose that those who make them can have no kind of sense that there is an Argentine point of view at all. After all, what is the position? Under the Agreement we have a best endeavours clause for 4 million metric tons of oil in the year covered by the Protocol. Under the 1949 Agreement, which was originally to have applied to the whole five years, the commitment was 5½ million tons; so it is 4 million compared with 5½ million tons.
The commitment which we have entered into in respect of coal is half a million tons; the commitment under the 1949


Agreement, which was to run for five years, was a million and a half tons. The commitment in respect of tinplate is 27,000 tons, compared with 30,000 tons in the 1949 Agreement. The 1949 Agreement had commitments over a whole range of other things. Frankly, the shortage of essentials of this kind was the greatest disadvantage under which we laboured during the negotiations. [Interruption.] Did the right hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: The figures do not tally.

Mr. Edwards: But there is no doubt about the figures. The figures which I have given are taken either from the Agreement or from the Protocol.
I have been seeking to maintain, I hope successfully, that our commitments are much lower than they were and that to talk about these great concessions is to misunderstand the whole character of our trading relations with the Argentine. I am, of course, sorry that it was not possible for us to settle all the trade prospects before the Mission left, although I think there is some advantage in letting the Mixed Consultative Committee have the job to do for which it was set up under the 1949 Agreement.
We cannot have a permanent Mission from here negotiating with the Argentine. In the Agreed Minute of Instruction which the Minister of Economy and I left with the Consultative Committee there was an Argentine proposal that they should issue import licences for the less essentials to the extent of 10 per cent. of the total volume of their other trade—that is to say, of oil and fuel and such essentials. Ten per cent. was to be the figure which they would use for the licensing of less essentials.
As I said earlier, I am disturbed by the fact that not very many import licences have been issued hitherto and I wish it were possible for something to be done about it. I can think of nothing more important from the Argentine point of view than they should issue import licences with the least possible delay. I know what they want to do, I know what they have in mind; they will survey the whole of the trade for the year and then do what they have nearly always done in the past—issue bulk licences. But I hope

that very soon all that preliminary work, all the exploring of the mutual needs of our two countries, will have finished and that the Argentine will be able to issue their licences in the way I have described. For that, more than anything else, will give our manufacturers the necessary confidence to re-establish their connections and to seek orders in the Argentine markets. I hope, also, that as the sterling position improves the Argentine will come increasingly to realise the importance of bringing in consumer goods as a counter-inflationary measure.
I have talked rather longer than I intended, but even so I have omitted a number of matters which are covered by these negotiations. I hope, however, that I have been of some help to the House in elucidating the Protocol and in dealing with the points put to me, except, of course, the two other points with which I think my right hon. Friend can more conveniently deal.
May I say this in conclusion? There was a wider aspect to this Mission. There was an opportunity to meet the President of the Argentine Republic and his Ministers and to meet the leaders of the British community in the Argentine; and I am quite sure that that was most valuable, and I hope we shall go on doing it. The potentialities of South America and the potentialities of the Argentine are enormous, and I am quite certain that we can and should find ways of helping one another in such a form as to increase the volume of trade between us.
I would not submit this Protocol as a perfect document, but having regard to all the circumstances—the economic circumstances of both our countries—I think it to have been the best we could have hammered out between us, and I trust and hope, and indeed believe, that it will be some help in the furtherance of Anglo-Argentine economic relations.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: The speech of the Economic Secretary has been most revealing. He has gone at great lengths into the Protocol which he succeeded in signing during his prolonged stay in the Argentine, but if one of the assets which he places in the balance is an acquaintance with General Peron, and even with some of the Argentine Ministers, then I think his journey


was scarcely necessary, because when a Minister of the Crown goes abroad we expect that he should be properly received by foreign Powers and by foreign Governments.
When I look at the Agreement which he has brought back, I must say that I regard the Minister as being most optimistic in his belief that all those things which are not tied down in the Agreement will be achieved without any pressure from this country. I have had a certain amount of business experience in South America, on a very small scale —but enough to know that when a Minister tells you he will buy your cow or your bull or your machine tomorrow, or next week or in three months' time, you know that it is likely that no sale whatsoever will be effected.
Reading through the document, and listening to the Minister's speech, one almost got that impression—that here is an hon. Gentleman who is in danger of being taken for a ride on the back of a bull. I hope our worst anticipations are not realised, but there are certain things upon which hon. Members on this side of the House must comment. The hon. Gentleman said he knew that one of them would be that the Argentine were slow working on the administration aspect. But the slow, cumbersome movement of the Government machine seems to have been too quick for some of his Treasury advisers. In fact, they succeeded in being very quick off the mark in several terms of this Agreement.
I have not much time, as there are many other hon. Members who wish to speak, but there are two points upon which I want to question the Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I see in his place. First of all, there is the £10½ million which we had to pay to the Argentine Government for the loss they suffered through the devaluation of the £.
The first question I would ask is this: Was there not some agreement—we know there was a sort of secret agreement in 1949—to see that we were protected against the devaluation of the Argentine peso, which took place only a few months after the devaluation of the British £? It seems amazing to us that there should have been no agreement between the British and Argentine Governments to see that this question of the devaluation of

currencies cut both ways; if we were to suffer, then the Argentine should suffer also. But there seems to have been no agreement of that sort whatever.
The second question is: On what was this sum of £10½ million exacted? It was exacted on those sterling balances which were outstanding to the Argentine Government at a time of devaluation. On a fairly close investigation it seems to us that those outstanding sterling balances were almost entirely bogus. They consisted, I believe, of two sources. First of all, there was £10 million of remittances which, under the 1949 Agreement, should have been paid off within 60 days of the signing of that Agreement. I want to know why they were not paid off.
That accounts for £10 million. A similar sum is accounted for by the fact that £10 million worth of goods, which the Argentine call the secondary or tertiary class of goods—non-essential goods—were guaranteed by the 1949 Agreement; and that sterling should have been made available for their purchase. It was held and created, in the same way, another large addition to the so-called sterling balances.
Next, we know—it is only a matter of consulting the larger companies, such as oil and coal companies—that the Argentine were being especially slow in making their payments. They were, therefore, building up sterling balances which, over all, should not have existed, if the Argentine had discharged their British debts. Therefore, from that point, it seems that large sums, amounting to £26 million or £30 million, have built up these so-called sterling balances which only existed because the Argentine had not discharged their debts, and the British taxpayer has to pay £10½ million. There may be a very slow and rambling central machinery in Argentina, but it certainly seems to have hoodwinked the Ministers on the Treasury Bench.
This is rather frightening, when we look at the conversion clause of the 1951 Agreement. In this Agreement, there is a conversion clause which says that, if the Argentine build up sterling balances of more than £20 million, those sterling balances may then be converted, not into dollars immediately, but into specific currencies and eventually to dollars, should no other agreement be reached.


Surely, after what we have seen has happened in the past over sterling balances, that is an extraordinarily dangerous clause.
Hon. Members from Stoke-on-Trent know what is happening in the pottery industry today. No licences are being granted. and I am informed that, at the latest meeting of the joint committee set up in Buenos Aires, one question at issue has been the payment for large quantities of agricultural machinery which are absolutely essential to the Argentine economy. I am told that a recommendation is coming through from the Argentine Government, or whoever is responsible for purchases, that these should have effect for three years.
If they are to be allowed to buy tomorrow several million pounds' worth of machinery, and yet may only effect payment over three years, that is precisely the sort of thing which sets up an adverse balance against us. This sort of thing must be watched, not with the placid eye of an animal which roves the Pampas, but with the eye of an eagle, on the part of the British Government, yet that is precisely what seems not to be happening. That is the first thing which strikes one about this Agreement.
The more general point which strikes one is that, so far as meat goes, it is only 25 per cent. of our total trade with the Argentine. I am sure that everyone agrees with what my right hon. and gallant Friend said in his opening speech, that the important thing is to increase Anglo-Argentine trade, which should be running at a total of something like £125 million a year. Argentina is potentially one of the richest countries in the world, but it has been bedevilled for a long time with a thoroughly bad Government, in the same way as we have been bedevilled for a short time with a fairly bad Government, though we hope to be able to put that matter right.
The whole level of Anglo-Argentine trade should be at a much greater rate, and that is precisely what we maintain this Agreement fails to achieve. It fails to do so chiefly, I think, because the Government went there in terror of being blackballed by the electorate, rather than being blackmailed by Peron, and, therefore, forced through the meat Agreement at any price, at any cost, and also forced on us the loss of enormous quantities of

British interests which should have been properly safeguarded.
I do not believe that these interests have been properly safeguarded. The hon. Gentleman well knows that, for the Argentine, our oil, our coal, and our tinplate are just as important, if not more important, than Argentine meat is to us. It is just as strong a bargaining point as is meat with the British public, because in the Argentine there is no free Press and there is no propaganda. We believe that our Government should have extracted from the Argentine Government some concession by way of saying to them, "We will not send you oil, coal and tinplate unless you agree to an overall settlement which is satisfactory to this country," and the present financial settle-men is not satisfactory to this country.

Mr. Mellish: Would the hon. Gentleman have adopted that attitude if the Argentine Government had refused to send us any meat, and the ration had gone below 8d.?

Mr. Fraser: My reply is that at the time Argentina had cut off meat supplies to this country, we should simultaneously have said to them that we would cut off supplies of oil, coal and tinplate; but we were not getting the meat at that time, anyway.
This Agreement does none of the three things which I have mentioned which an Agreement should have done. It does not establish proper exchange values, which are a most important point in the trade of any country. We should know where we stand in regard to exchange rates. I think there are four different rates of exchange, and that many of the remittances to this country are being paid at fanciful rates. If we buy from the Argentine, we pay at 14.5 pesos to the£but, if they buy from us, the pesos accruing to the British trader have to be changed into pesos at 40 to the £. Something like £10 million a year should flow into this country at a rate of 40 pesos to the £ instead of 14.5 which means that what, in fact, is coming to this country is valued at less than £5 million in terms of Argentine pesos. We find, right away through all these arrangements. that this basis is not satisfactory to us.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the Primitiva gas holdings, which has been outstanding for 11 years, and the question


of their settlement. There was nothing in the 1949 Agreement about it, and there is nothing in the 1951 Agreement. The hon. Gentleman said that many of these things would work out slowly and satisfactorily, but, at the moment, we see no indication of the working out in that direction whatever. All the way through, according to all the information which one can get, there is a total clamping down on import licences from this country into Argentina, and that, of course, will have a most unfortunate result, and might lead to balances accruing in favour of Argentina which they could transfer into dollars.
The Economic Secretary said that the dollar clause, which, I think, is probably the most vicious and dangerous in the Agreement, was one which had to be agreed to. I think that, if we look at the agreements which Argentina has concluded with Western Germany, with France and with Italy, we shall find that there is no such clause. In the event of sterling balances, or mark balances or francs balances being built up, there is no question of dollar transferability, and, if the Western Germans, the French and the Italians, who, after all, have not been such good friends of Argentina as we have, can achieve that settlement, then the British Government should have been able to achieve it.
Looking back over the last five years, and at this Agreement, which I hope will be the last to be carried out with the Argentine Government by this Government, the point which stands out clearly is that what this country needs, vis-à-visthe Argentine, is a proper trade agreement which is in the broadest terms and is not bedevilled by issues of bulk purchase or inter-State trading. The hon. Gentleman said that it was impossible for us to get away from State trading with Argentina.
Statements have been made in this country by leading Argentinians in the meat trade, acting for the Argentine Government, saying that they are prepared to abandon these things. Our first object must be to raise the whole balance of trade between the Argentine and this country. We must not let the question be bedevilled by meat or by one Government trying to call the bluff of another Government, thus making the people suffer through lack of meat, and the taxpayer suffer because of the ridiculous price which is paid.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: The hon. Gentleman says that some of the Argentine meat traders have said that they would revert to this individual trading?

Mr. Fraser: Yes.

Mr. Davies: But are they in a position to do that? One was under the impression that it was not within their power.

Mr. Fraser: I am talking of a senior Government official who made that statement. What is more, in a speech four or five years ago, Mr. Miranda said that the reason that the Argentine Government introduced I. A. P. I. was to counteract British bulk purchase.
The question of meat is obviously one of immense importance. but the question of Anglo-Argentine trade is of greater importance. It is most important that we should satisfactorily settle the question of the import of foodstuffs from the Argentine and the sale of our products in the Argentine. Our economies are complementary. The people of the Argentine are, I believe, naturally friendly towards this country; but our relations have been bedevilled by the two Governments—the Government of Peron and the British Labour Government —who have insisted on this system of State trading and bulk purchase.
I believe that we can soon do something to rid the country of our theoretical planners who, far from being brilliant Schachtians, have clearly got the dirty end of the mouth organ. They thought that they had been clever and Schachtian when they had been trading with all the incompetence of Bulgarians before the war when they traded with Hitlerite Germany. When we have rid the country of this Government, we will be able to send out a proper trading mission to negotiate a wide agreement for trade between our two countries. Until then, I can see nothing but dangers and ills in the document we are discussing today.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Mellish: The speech of the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) was extremely well delivered. He has the happy knack of saying very nasty things very pleasantly. I would only say that he indicated some of the difficulties which this Labour Government have faced in dealing with the


Argentine. He talked a great deal about the Argentine Government. He made some fearful remarks about them which, knowing his point of view, was not surprising.
It is all very well for him to say that the Argentine Government would welcome private buying. In fact, as we all know, they have a State organisation of their own. It is grossly unfair to put out the idea that all we have to do is to send a lot of little private buyers out there and that, as a consequence of their negotiations, the Argentine would then allow much lower prices to these small buyers. That is not possible. Everybody knows that, if it were possible, this Labour Government would have taken advantage of it.
I do not think that we want bulk purchase merely for the sake of bulk purchase. We want it because we believe that, in the long run, it gets us food for our people much more cheaply. That is a point of view which has been supported not only by experts in this country, but by the Economic Commission of the United Nations which is made up of people who are independent of our own Labour Party point of view. They have agreed that bulk purchase by our Government has resulted in Britain getting very many foodstuffs much more cheaply than otherwise would have been the case.
I do not mean it personally when I say that the hon. Gentleman was very dishonest in his form of propaganda when he said that all we had to do was to get a Tory Government back into power and then we could send over a trade commission and automatically everything would be very much better. The hon. Gentleman completely ignored that today, at the time of this meat shortage, we face a war situation and that there has been an overwhelming demand for meat with stockpiling by the Americans. All these factors have put the Argentinians in a handsome position, because they are one of the greatest countries exporting meat.
One cannot blame them for trying to get the highest possible price. That is inevitable under the system under which we live. It is most unfair if the Tory Party say, "We ought to fight these Argentinians. We ought to cut their oil and this that and the other. We should then get a lot more meat, because it is only the Labour people who are respons

ible for the shortage." Obviously, if the policy of the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone were adopted, there would be no prospect of getting any meat for years to come. We might even have a war.
The attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite in dealing with foreign countries is fantastic. The first thing they want to do is to send a battleship or cut off supplies, and so on. They do not want to negotiate with any country which attempts to make matters difficult. All they want to do is to use the old methods which we think have been dead for a very long time. Unfortunately, we have been short of meat. We have been the victim. We offered the Argentinians £90 a ton at a time when prices were failing.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: No.

Mr. Mellish: I say that we did. That price was refused by the Argentinians. Then we had the war in Korea and our offer was raised to £97 10s. The Argentinians wanted £140. The "Daily Express", which is not a Socialist paper, said at the time that this Labour Government were doing the right thing in holding out against the Argentinians. They said that it was a very fine policy and that they admired us for it. The "Daily Express", like the Tory Party, shifted its ground very much later on when it saw how unpopular this was because it stopped people from getting more meat.
Then, of course, they joined in the general Tory cry, saying that it was entirely the fault of the Labour Government and that, if only they had paid the extra price earlier on, they could have got a lot more meat. [Horn. MEMBERS: "They could."] That is all very well. We made the extra offer of £97 10s. a ton, and we did that bearing in mind that the rate we were paying to our Dominions was much lower.
We on this side are concerned to keep down the cost of living. Hon. Gentlemen opposite wasted a day in this House in which they said the most scurrilous things.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The Minister spoke about blackmail.

Mr. Mellish: Anyone who reads that debate will see that some most shocking remarks were made about the Argentinians. Also, hon. Gentlemen opposite said that we ought to pay whatever price we could to get more meat. It was said


that it did not matter what price we paid so long as the people could have nice big grilled steaks. There was all this stuff and nonsense to show that it was only the Government who were holding up the meat. It was a sorry story. I think that everybody regrets the atmosphere in which this question has been debated. There has been no mention of the Korean war in any of the Tory Party propaganda.
I should like to make another comment about private buying. As we know, before the war meat in the Argentine was bought privately. Here again is a piece of typical Tory Party misrepresentation. What do they mean by private buying? Ordinary people think in terms of small companies going out there and arguing with each other and eventually getting the lowest possible price. That is the sort of free competition and free enterprise which the Tory Party talk about.
It is a lot of nonsense to suggest that private buying up to 1938 was free competition. The people who went out to the Argentine to buy meat were the same people who had interests out there. It was a first-class racket, and everybody knows it. Vast profits were made by them and the lower cost was never passed on to the public. The right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), in opening this debate, made reference to the "Economist." What does it say about them? Talking about the committee that investigated this business in 1938, they say:
Although the profits of the company vary from year to year there have been several years in which they have taken advantage of the Argentine producers poor competitive position without passing on to the British consumer any of the reductions in price thus exacted.
There were only six companies engaged in the purchase of meat from the Argentine in this country, and those six companies all had vested interests interwoven with similar interests in the Argentine itself. This is the private enterprise about which the Conservative Party talk. This is solely a private monopoly. I can quote the Committee of Inquiry, which was jointly set up by the British and Argentina Government in 1938. They said:

The great bulk of the Anglo-Argentina trade, and in recent years 85 per cent. of the total, is in the hands of six companies, each of which represents essentially the same financial interest as the exporting concern whose product it handles.
This is the small private enterprise—and here I make a criticism of the Minister of Food—whose vested interests are still in control of Smithfield Market, and we are paying them huge sums for doing practically nothing.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Has not the hon. Gentleman just said that the six concerns were in the main the same identities as the producers of the goods; does he mean the same identities as the producers of Argentine meat?

Mr. Mellish: I mean that they had financial interests in the Argentine, in the sense that they owned many of the companies which were exporting meat. There is a financial tie-up between them and the Argentine companies exporting meat. In other words, it was one gigantic family, all getting a good profit and rake off, bearing in mind that at the time the consumption of meat and the production of meat was vastly different to what it is today. Indeed, the Argentine have not forgotten some of the problems that went on as a consequence of this racket, and they are making quite sure that that son: of thing does not happen again.
I am one of those who recognise that if there was a General Election in the near future one of the first things that the Tory Party would come out with would be the shortage of meat. They would make it one of the important points in their programme. They issued thousands of pamphlets in which they said, "Your Labour M. P. voted for a cut in meat; did you?" or something of that kind, implying that we on this side are thrilled to death because the housewife today gets only 10d. worth of meat and that the Tory Party are the only ones who really consider the needs of the housewife. Thai; sort of propaganda is extremely dishonest because it never takes into account why that cut was necessary. The whole matter has been further complicated by debates in the House and the saying of things which have made more difficult the negotiations in regard to which I should have thought the Economic Secretary was to be congratulated.

Sir Arthur Salter: Has anything been said by any Member on this side that has had a more adverse effect on negotiations than a single word used by the Minister of Food?

Mr. Mellish: Yes, Sir. I will prove it. In the last debate we had on meat—I do not think the right lion. Gentleman was then in the House—the Tory line was that we should pay any price in order to get what meat we could for our people; so that they could have rump steak. When the Opposition expressed the view, before we entered into negotiations, that they were prepared to pay any price for meat, I do not think that can be said to have been helpful to any Government negotiations that were going on.
This has come from a party which claims patriotism as their own sole right and claim that they more than anyone else are the true defenders of our country, and so on. They are prepared to do anything so long as they can bring down the Labour Government and to sacrifice any and every principle to get the Leader of the Opposition into Downing Street. We have seen again and again the goodwill of the country and the interest of the country secrificed in order that the Tories may get back to power.
This debate has been initiated purely for the purpose of trying to make further difficulties between the Argentine and our own country. I believe that we did right to hold out as we did, and that the present price, in the main, has been due to the skilled negotiations of my right hon. Friend; and that if the Tory party had been in power and allowed private enterprise to go in and negotiate, the price would have been considerably higher.
I want to quote some figures, which I think should go on record, of prices in other countries where a good deal of private enterprise operates. In France, they are paying 2s. 5d. per lb. for beef as against our ls. 8d.; Switzerland, 4s. 6¼d.; Denmark, 2s. 6¾d. We are paying for mutton in this country 2s. per lb. In France it is 6s. 2d. per lb. and in Switzerland 5s. 2d. per lb., and so the story goes on. Prices everywhere else for almost every commodity, including meat, are very much higher than in this country. I believe in the policy of the party which has in the long run given the people cheaper food and more of it.

5.48 p.m.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Most of the arguments which the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has just used were devoted to the question of propaganda. He was determined to make as much propaganda as he could, and I am not going to be led into that field, except to say that if he is going to talk about dishonest propaganda, some of the stuff that I had to put up with at the last election about cutting children's allowances, and so on, would be very hard to beat.
I want to come back to the much more useful and constructive speech made by the Economic Secretary. He told us, quite rightly, as, I think, the whole country realises, that he was in a very difficult negotiating position. He told us that he had to compromise. He told us that results were not yet flowing from the Protocol, that discussions were still going on, and I think he practically said that the Agreement had, in some measure, been a disappointment. It certainly has been a disappointment so far to the industrial community of this country, and it is on the industrial side and the financial side that I want exclusively to speak.
Debates on anything to do with the Argentine have all tended to rotate round meat. I might say, if I may use such a simile in a meat debate, that the tail tends to wag the dog. There has been lost from view the fact that a very much larger interest was obscured by the meat question. For example, exports in 1948 from this country to the Argentine totalled £52 million. They fell in 1949 to £51 million and in 1950 to £38 million and, as the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) said, our exports in normal times ought to be much higher than any of the figures I have quoted.
Every form of obstruction has been put in the way of the trader from this country by the Argentine Government. Marine insurance now has often to be effected with an Argentine company for goods going both into and out of their country. There is the blocking of exchange and the non-granting of import permits. First, there was the ban on the importation of whisky and then the release, provided that it was only imported in bulk and not in bottles, so that it could be tampered with and perhaps adulterated on the other


side. All these things have been going on. All this has resulted in bedevilling the situation that arises from the meat problem. The meat problem has exacerbated the international situation, and it had these secondary effects.
Talks are going on in the consultative committee at the present time. Exports from this country are, broadly, divided into four classes. First, there is the class of raw materials like fuel, oil, tinplate and prime essentials. Then there are other essential goods, in which the Argentine tend to classify capital equipment, such as transport, and so on. Thirdly, there are the less essential goods, and, finally, there are the non-essential goods.
Now we come to some hair splitting as to the meaning of essential goods. Where I see the danger is that our idea of what is essential is very different to that of the Argentine. Our essential exports, if they are to be divided into those sorts of categories, are not the things which have been provided for under the Protocol. These we want to keep. What we want to send, and what from our point of view are essential are finished products. I think it was announced today that 10 per cent. of our fuel commitments would be agreed to, as representing the non-essential class. Here we are fighting a battle on an extremely unfavourable battleground, because the Argentine have got what they want.
We have an unfortunate committee struggling to get promoted into categories of essential commodities, something which the Argentinians do not want to have in the category, while something which we consider vital to ourselves they want. I have in mind certain articles, and I will give a few figures. In 1948, we exported bicycles and motor cycles to the value of £2 million. That has fallen to £117,000 according to the latest figures. In cutlery one firm alone had orders for £250,000, but import licences were granted for, only a fraction of that. In 1947 we were exporting whisky to the value of something like £350,000, but we send not a drop today. But those are the kind of things which it is valuable for us to export, not tinplate, fuel, and so on, which we need at home.
The consultative committee is in a shockingly bad negotiating position. I have the greatest sympathy with them, but the pass has been sold. largely under

duress, because the Economic Secretary was himself in a difficult negotiating position. The Argentine has reduced its meat commitments by something like 50 per cent. I listened carefully to the figures which were given, and I understood that our exports of tinplate and oil show a much less reduction. The bargain there is much more favourable to the Argentine. Further, they are being paid £10½ million as a compromise on devaluation, but it is a most curious process of thought to allow the Argentine, who, I am informed, had at that time a debit balance, to get any compensation at all for devaluation. If we take their sterling balances and set them against the remittances and liabilities, I am told that they were, in fact, in debt.
I should now like to come to a point which I consider to be extremely important, and that is the floating balance of £20 million sterling. Anything in excess of £20 million sterling automatically becomes transferable into dollars. The Argentine is short of dollars, as I am sure the Economic Secretary knows, but I got a bit of evidence only the day before yesterday which shows how hungry for dollars they are. I got it from a British buyer of hides from the Argentine, who brings them to this country but he did not buy them direct from the Argentine, because he got them cheaper in New York.
Argentinians were so short of dollars that they were prepared to accept a lesser price for hides to sell in New York and get dollars. The New York merchant who bought them was able to sell those same hides to Great Britain at a lesser price for sterling than a British buyer would have paid direct from the Argentine. It is juggling with exchanges, but it shows how desperately hungry for dollars the Argentinians are.
If that is so—and I would be glad to hear that I am wrong—then what, in effect, is going to be the result of Article 12, which deals with the excess of over £20 million? Surely if dollars are wanted as badly as that, the Argentinians will go to almost any means to get them. What means are open to them under this Protocol? To buy as little as possible from Britain and to sell as much as they can as quickly as possible in order to reach the £20 million. I know that the Economic Secretary thinks that would be disastrous to this country. He used the


words, "There would be no advantage to either country to be out of balance." That is what we would like to think, but I think the Argentinians will want to be out of balance as much as possible. Again, I will be delighted to hear that I am wrong.
The Economic Secretary had a difficult task to do. He met a master on his own court and if, I may use a Wimbledon analogy, played him into the sun. I am afraid that he was beaten 6–0, 6–0, 6–1. The "one" was that this will be reviewed again in 12 months' time.

5.56 p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I have listened with very great interest to this debate and I have compared it with the debate we had on 8th February. The tone is entirely different, the weather is entirely different, and the meat ration is likely to be even greater in its difference. In February the benches opposite were crowded and the tenor of hon. Members' remarks was that we ought to give in at all costs to the Argentine. Today, it is entirely different. We are not standing up enough to the Argentine.
On 8th May the housewives' name was on the lips of every Member who stood up. Today, there is not a word about the housewives, not even about the 100,000 who call themselves the Housewives' League, that kindergarten class of the Tory Party who send in petitions against bulk purchase. The tone in February was remarkably exultant and made it very difficult for our negotiators to go from that atmosphere and get a good bargain.
The tone was influenced by the fact that the ration was at 8d. and the housewife was miserable about it; indeed, not more miserable than the Government themselves. The Tory Party thought that now was their chance to harry the Government and force a General Election. They pointed out to the housewife how bulk buying had completely failed. But why did not private enterprise step in at that particular juncture? There was their chance. The negotiations with the Argentine had broken down.
Our meat ration was 8d. and here was a great opportunity for private enterprise to come to the rescue. Of course, they did not, but they showed

us for all time the difference between bulk buying and private enterprise. They knew we were short of butchers' meat so they charged us 11s. per lb. for gammon. They knew we were short of butchers' meat so tins of chops from France appeared in the shops at 7s. 6d. a lb. We had Irish ham, and we still have it, at 8s. 6d. a lb. How could any woman in her senses, standing in a butcher's shop and seeing the price of private enterprise against her good, solid, roast beef at the cheapest price in the world, have two opinions about bulk purchase and private enterprise? When the negotiations broke down, we missed the solid beef of Argentina, at the cheapest price in the world.
The average price is now £128 10s. per ton. How does that compare with private enterprise? We were told on 8th February by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that America was paying £300 per ton. That is why the Opposition are silent on how this agreement with Argentina affects the housewife. They have said that Argentina would prefer a great number of buyers, if we went back to private enterprise. Of course they would. Would it not be nice if we were the sellers, waiting in Argentina for 60 buyers coming from England?
Argentina knows perfectly well that if 60 buyers came from England to negotiate the price on one occasion, they would never come out again as 60 buyers. On the way across they would get rid of 59 of them even if they dumped 30 of them in the sea and included the other 29 in a merger or a ring. We have had an illustration of how the Opposition hate bulk buying when the Government are doing it, but themselves indulge in mergers. One of the mergers is now taking place, the greatest of all time, in Oxford Street. Do they believe in bulk buying, or do they give the consumer the benefit of competition?
Argentina knows perfectly well that she might get the benefit of high prices once in a lifetime, but that before there could be any more agreements one man would come over from England representing all the combines and rings. What did Senor Hogan, speaking at a reception for the British and Argentine missions say? It was:
No one forgets the days when meat cost 23 centavos here and 83 centavos in Britain. The firmness of our position is not under


stood. Argentina is now of age and nothing will deflect…(us) …from (our) …purpose to get an equitable solution.
Hon. Members may think that those were the good old days, when free private enterprise was arriving to purchase cheaply and pass on to the people of Britain the great reductions that they had achieved. That is how they passed it on, by making more than 400 per cent. profit. The housewife knows that the same thing would happen again today.
The Opposition must know that we have achieved a very good settlement for the tables of our country. Can any of them deny that our butchers' meat prices, even at 3d. per lb. extra, will still be the cheapest in the world? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman who opened the debate will probably, out of the kindness of his heart, put out another leaflet this time, pointing out to the women of England that, under the Labour Government's bulk buying, our beef is the cheapest in the world.
I should like to address a remark to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food. When we get this good Argentine beef into the shops—I understand that the chilled beef will also be very good —with it we shall be getting our own killings. It is very awkward for a woman like me to understand from the notices that hang up in the shops, a good many yards from the counter, what is an "uppercut" or an "end cut," what is "second quality" and what is "first quality." I have sometimes studied the notices, much to the chagrin of my butcher, but I think he knew perfectly well that no matter how closely I stood to that notice which must hang up in every butcher's, I still could not tell whether I was getting first or second quality, or which breed I was getting.
I ask the Minister, on behalf of the housewife, to ask the butchers—and if they do not comply to order them—to put tickets or labels on the meat and on the counter. Every time I go into my butcher's I see that remark of his own:
 "'Don't blame your butcher; blame me.' —Maurice Webb.
The butchers have not been slow in putting up that notice "Blame Maurice Webb," so I ask my right hon. Friend not to be slow in insisting that they put the correct ticket on every piece of meat they sell to the housewife.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) both spoke about the prewar system of buying. The hon. Member for Bermondsey called it "monopoly" but the hon. Lady did not go quite so far. If I understood her aright, she called it a "merger." May I remind the hon. Lady, and, through the OFFICIAL REPORT, the hon. Member for Bermondsey, that the meat that we used to get from Argentina before the war arrived in regular shipments. There was no finer meat in the world, including the chilled beef of which we have heard so much this evening, and it was so cheap that our own farmers were always in the greatest alarm and despondency about it.
Both hon. Members spoke about bulk buying. I always prefer to call it "State trading" because many private enterprise buyers purchase in bulk. It is a good thing to do, and a good many people will not quarrel with that system. Surely there has been no greater condemnation of the system of Government trading than the fact that for nine months we had no meat at all from the largest of our prewar suppliers.
I have been one of the greatest critics of Government policy in not arriving at an agreement with Argentina during the whole of those nine months. I have spoken in debate after debate on the subject, so it would be churlish of me if I were not to stand up now and, speaking solely from the point of view of the supplies of meat, say that I welcome this Agreement. I do not think that the price for the current supplies of meat is too high, in view of world conditions. My quarrel with the Government is rather that they failed to secure agreement far earlier than they did.
Let me look at the facts of the situation. They have been given before, but there is no harm in looking at them again. In June, 1949, we concluded the Anglo-Argentine Agreement, as a result of which we secured supplies of meat at an average of £97 10s. a ton. On 18th September, 1949, we devalued the £. In the summer of 1950 the Korean war broke out. When we came to negotiate the terms for the second of the five years under the Anglo-Argentine Agreement, what would one have expected in these circumstances?


Would one have expected to pay a lower price or a higher price.? In the meantime the £ had been devalued and war had broken out.
As regards devaluation, we have the unquestionable fact that the Argentine was having to pay more for many, if not all, of the goods that she was buying from us; as always happens when war breaks out, there was a great and rising demand for meat for the Services; and, moreover, the background to the whole of the negotiations was a picture of world underproduction of meat and of rising prices. The Minister of Food knew that, and he told us about it in the debate of 8th February. Those who wish to read what he said will find it in column 1965 of the OFFICIAL REPORT.
What did we do about it in those circumstances? Did we offer to buy at £97 10s. a ton plus a percentage in respect of devaluation? We did not. Did we offer to buy at the old price of £97 10s. a ton? We did not. We reduced our provisional price to one of £90 a ton. What a ridiculous thing that was, following closely, as it did, upon the Minister's charges of blackmail and all the talk about holding a great and proud country to ransom. There is little wonder that the negotiations with the Argentine were embittered from the very start. In them we saw one of the most unhappy facets of Government-to-Government trading in that it generated, as Government-to-Government trading always does, bad feeling between countries which ought otherwise to be friends.
The Chancellor told us on 8th February, according to column 267 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, how, on 27th December last year, the Argentine reduced its price to an average of £120 a ton, including chilled beef. It is very easy to be wise after the event, but I believe that we ought unquestionably to have accepted that offer. Yet, speaking in the House of Commons on 25th January, the Minister of Food said about the price of £120 a ton, including chilled beef:
 "…we believe that their demands are quite excessive, quite unreasonable and quite unfair to this country. We really cannot keep the cost of living down if we are to yield to every demand of this sort."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 442.]
As my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain

Crookshank) pointed out, the pamphleteers of the Socialist Party took up the cry and it was not until April that we were able to arrive at an agreement on the basis of £128 12s. a ton, a higher price than we could have obtained three months, six months or, I believe, nine months earlier, and a price in excess of the one which the Minister had said was excessive, unreasonable and unfair.
That is not all. There is also the question of the side payment of £6,250,000. I believe that that ought to be spread over the deliveries of the last year of the Anglo-Argentine Agreement, because it was in respect of devaluation that the side payment was made. If we spread it over, it adds an extra £20 to the £97 10s. a ton which we were paying under the agreement, making £117 10s., which makes the provisional offer of £90 even more indefensible than it was before.
I want now to say a word about tinplate. We undertook to make available during the first year 27,000 tons of tinplate, I am credibly informed that each ton of tinplate will can four tons of corned beef. With the tinplate that we are providing we might have expected to receive over 100,000 tons of corned beef; but all we can expect to receive under the Argeement is 30,000 tons in the year. The position is even worse if the figures for the first four months of this year are studied, for in those months we supplied the Argentine, from our own limited and valuable resources of tinplate, with enough tinplate to can 47,000 tons of meat and we received from her in that period only 90 tons of tinned meats of all kinds.
As to the quantity of meat that we were to receive in the three years 1947–49—I disregard 1950, because in that year we received only six months' supply—we received an average of 314,000 tons of carcase meat from the Argentine. The Anglo-Argentine Agreement of 1949 laid down that the Argentine Government should use its best endeavours to deliver and that the United Kingdom Government would undertake to ship in each year not less than 400,000 long tons of carcase meat and offals. But now all we are to be guaranteed is 200,000 tons, and so we are to pay more money for considerably less meat.
Speaking only in regard to the meat aspect of the Agreement, I believe that the price for current supplies is not too


high, that we ought to have been guaranteed more carcase meat and more corned beef, and that we would have done better had we faced the realities of the situation earlier and denied ourselves whatever satisfaction we may have derived from insulting our traditional suppliers.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Time does not permit a detailed examination of the case advanced by the Opposition, and, even if it did, I am not competent to go into details. But it seems to me that much political propaganda, as distinct from attention to the facts, has been made today.
The hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) sought to indict the Government for its trade in bulk purchase and said that this was the general cause of our present difficulties about food. I should have thought that in the case not only of the Argentine but also of the Commonwealth. and particularly Australia and New Zealand with whom we have made long term contracts, it has been of very great advantage, not only to us but also to the people in those countries. I am sure that our friends in Australasia would agree with that, because it is impossible to plan production unless some attention is given to the years ahead so that men will know where they will be when they are laying out their capital and making their plans.
What is true of meat in the Commonwealth is also true of other commodities which have been bought by the Ministry of Food and other Departments. I have in mind particularly cocoa and coffee which are necessary for the lives of the people of this country. In reference to coffee, which we are not examining today, the world price has risen enormously over the last few months. In fact, we have been able to make some profit out of that and to share it with the producing country.
I do not share the view, therefore, that bulk purchase is an evil in itself. In all the circumstances it was inevitable that the Government should take upon itself this obligation. Moreover, as we have seen in the case of the Argentine, there are difficulties in exercising free trade. There is no such thing as far as the Argentine is concerned. The hon. Member for Stafford and Stone was at pains to tell us that they were prepared to free the trade

in some way so that the traders could sell direct. We should need greater evidence of that before we could accept it.
In the circumstances of the case the Economic Secretary did a very good job of work when he went to the Argentine. He inherited a difficult situation where, in a world which was short of food, the Argentine was largely independent of our trade and could get better prices elsewhere. My hon. Friend had to patch up the arrangements at some expense. The £10½ million in respect of the devaluation of sterling outstanding was, of course, a very heavy bill. But, in the circumstances. he did a very good job.
Our exporters had hoped that it would have been possible to do more trade with the Argentine arising from this Agreement than has been found possible. It was hoped that after April the mixed consultative committees would have been able to arrange their terms of trade and the terms of exports and imports, especially in respect of textiles, motorcars and pottery. But there has been great delay and, therefore, disappointment amongst our manufacturers.
I hope our friends in the Argentine will believe that we want to do the maximum amount of trade with them and that we want all the meat they can provide, but that they, in their turn, have an obligation to the traders of this country, and that it must be a mutual undertaking. I hope that what has been so well begun will go on from success to success, and again I congratulate my hon. Friend on his good work.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies), on two things. We have had a most candid speech from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. When he said that he was not producing a perfect document I found myself in considerable agreement. I also agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, when he said that the Economic Secretary had come into a very ugly inheritance. That is a fair description, when the Economic Secretary considers that his neighbour on his left, the Minister of Food, described those with whom he was negotiating as ugly blackmailers. That cannot have helped his negotiations.
But, giving the hon. Gentleman full credit for those difficulties, I find some parts of this Agreement unsatisfactory. I also regret to say that some parts of it, even after that very clear speech, are still not absolutely clear. So, if I may, I will confine my remarks to what I think are the salient points which have not been fully explained during this debate by the hon. Gentleman or by his colleagues behind him who, incidentally, have not added much in detail to the value of this debate.
Although the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) was glad that her table would be filled by increased quantities of Argentine meat, that, unfortunately, is not the case. As my right hon. Friend said, we have had a long succession of agreements. In the 1946 Miranda Agreement we were promised 83 per cent. of Argentine output. That was followed by the 1948 Andes Agreement which promised us 400,000 tons a year. That was followed by the Balfour Agreement of 1949 which promised us 300,000 tons a year.
Now we have come down to the present Agreement—perhaps I may call it the Edwards Agreement or the Edwards Protocol—which promises us only 200,000 tons a year. Whatever arguments hon. Members opposite may use in favour of this method of state trading, it is obviously resulting in our getting from the Argentine less and less meat every time a negotiator—whether he is a Minister or a diplomat—tries to deal with this question in the Argentine.
Another side of the question which is important is the production of the Argentine, which has gone up during the same period. Her pre-war figure of meat production was 2,010,000 tons. In 1949 that figure has risen to 2,340,000 tons, and in 1950 the production was 2,360,000 tons. Those figures were published by the Food and Agriculture Office. As the hon. Gentleman said, in the early part of the year there was a drought. His colleague the Minister of Food, however, explained some of the difficulties of the Argentine by putting that drought at the back-end of 1950, but it really came at the beginning of 1950. Therefore, it would appear that by successful negotiation, without any fogs and misunderstanding, more meat could have been got and, I hope, will be got from the Argentine.
Next let me turn to one Article of the Agreement which I have found a little dangerous. Under Article 8 the hon. Gentleman agreed with the Argentine Government that the whole of these negotiations on meat, as far as I understand it, will be reviewed not later than 28th February, 1952, both as regards price and other arrangements for meat shipments for the period between April, the end of the Agreement, and thereafter.
This seems to me to open up a possibility that when we get to January and February, a time when home meat supply is short, we may again have the position bedevilled by disagreements between the Argentine and ourselves. This is a dangerous Article, and I am sorry that the Economic Secretary inserted February. It would have been better if he had inserted a later date.

Mr. J. Edwards: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I should have liked to have an agreement that ran for 15, months, which would have got us back on to the years of the old 1949 Agreement. As I explained in my speech, however, it was with some difficulty that we persuaded the Argentinians to agree to a year's contract. In the end I was persuaded that we had to agree to the 12 months, which was the best we could do.

Mr. Turton: I was only pointing out the weakness, which the hon. Gentleman has admitted. There is the danger that after seven months we shall again have these long negotiations from which he suffered and, if they are unwisely handled, as they were in July, 1950, and again in December, 1950, there may again be a stoppage of meat, with all its consequences to hon. Members in all parts of the House and their constituents.
The next point with which I wish to deal is the question of price. I hope that the Minister of Food, who I understand is to wind up the debate, will clear up this matter. So far as I can understand the position, the Economic Secretary takes a different view from the right hon. Gentleman, because the Minister of Food told us on 24th April that the average price of £120 per ton offered in December was a mythical figure and gave us figures on which we could base an average price of £128 12s. per ton for the present Agreement.
Now the Economic Secretary comes along and says, "Oh, yes, the average price in December was in fact £120, but it is quite wrong to describe the average price as £128 12s. because I never negotiated on average prices; I negotiated only on pilot prices." I ask the Minister of Food whether he now wishes to correct the figures which he gave in HANSARD of 24th April, in column 223, when he gave the quantities of each grade of meat that would be imported and the price at which it would be imported; because the whole country has been led by the Minister of Food to believe that that was the Agreement.
Not a word of this comes in the Protocol that is published. Until the Economic Secretary told us today that he did not negotiate an average price but only negotiated on pilot prices we had all been led to believe that the Minister of Food was speaking accurately when he gave those figures. I hope that when he replies he will deal with that point because it is of vital importance.
After all, what we were told today was that the guarantee we gave was that we would take at least one quarter of the imports of beef in the form of chilled beef but that we would, if necessary, take more chilled beef than that. That is the note I took of the Economic Secretary's speech, and if I am misquoting him I hope he will interrupt me as we are anxious to get the facts of the position.
We must bear in mind that Article 7 which he has signed says that we will buy the total quantity of chilled quality that may be offered for sale by the Argentine Government, and that if we do not take it as chilled quality but, presumably, take instead some other quality we shall still pay the price of chilled beef of £146 per ton. That is what Article 7 says. It does appear therefore that the average price is not £128 12s. per ton, but is likely to be a much higher price than that.

Mr. J. Edwards: I do not think that there is anything inconsistent in what I have said. First we fixed the pilot prices which are put down in the Protocol. Second, over and above that we said that we will take whatever quantity of chilled beef Argentine can send us for the rest of the period of the 1949 Agreement. What I said was that there were minimum

quantities—200,000 tons, but that I expected and hoped that we would get more than that. I did not know, and I do not think anybody knows, what proportion will be chilled. I expect it to be not less than a quarter, but, until we really know how much there is in total and the composition of it, a firm average cannot be arrived at. Figures however could be given of the sort that were given in the original statement, figures based on the best assumptions that could be made at the time.

Mr. Turton: That makes that point clear. We are not to pay over much attention to the figure given by the Minister of Food on 24th April; it is likely that the quantity of chilled meat will be larger, and therefore the average price will be higher. We know that the lowest average price will be £128 12s. and that it may be a great deal higher. My only comment is that it is a great pity that the Minister of Food did not advise His Majesty's Government in December, when Argentine negotiators were here, to accept their figure of £120 per ton. If he had done that we should have got the meat and be paying a good deal less.
I now leave the question of meat for a moment and turn to that of feeding-stuffs. I was very disappointed with what the Economic Secretary said on that. The most disappointing part of his speech was when he reached the question of maize and feedingstuffs and said "I shall not deal with that, I shall leave it to the Minister of Food." I hope that we shall receive from the Minister of Food an accurate description of what is being done about making arrangements for the supply from the Argentine Republic of essential feedingstuffs for agriculture. We have been unfortunate in the last few years in getting diminishing quantities of feedingstuffs—exactly the same story as we found in meat.
Under the Andes Agreement, it was undertaken that we would get 1,270,000 tons. Under the Balfour Agreement we undertook to spend, as my right hon. and gallant Friend said, some £23 million on maize and barley, which would mean, at the then prevailing prices, round about 700,000 tons. Under this Agreement there is not only no mention of feedingstuffs, but the hon. Gentleman went out of his way to suspend the Schedules. I found his explanation of why he had agreed to


suspend these Schedules of the Balfour Agreement very hard to understand. He said that except in the case of meat there was no similar undertaking on the part of the Argentine to ship quantities or values.
Under Article 5 (b) of the Balfour Agreement it is stated:
In accordance with Article 5 (a) the Argentine Government agree to sell or to facilitate the supply to the United Kingdom, in the first year, of goods to the values or quantities detailed in Schedule I to this Agreement…
As a farmer who is anxious to see the British farmer raising a greater quantity of meant in this country, whether beef, pork or even eggs, it is vital that that Schedule should be observed by the Argentine. In the course of negotiations the Economic Secretary has allowed that to be dropped. In view of the much better harvest prospects in the Argentine, and the fact that Continental countries are very keen to get hold of these feeding-stuffs, I hoped that the Economic Secretary had come to some agreement on feedingstuffs. Perhaps we shall hear more about that when the Minister of Food speaks.
I wish to say a few words on the other parts of the Agreement. The point was put extremely ably and brilliantly by my right hon. and gallant Friend. What the problems other than meat and feeding-stuffs really boil down to in the Economic Secretary's explanation is that he has put up £10½ million of the taxpayers' money and that has been the only way of solving the outstanding financial difficulties. He has not aided the British exporter because in that £20 million balance there is an inducement on the part of the Argentine to forgo taking British goods in order to buy dollar commodities. I believe that to be the great weakness of that part of the Agreement.
Finally, I come to the last statement of the Economic Secretary when he said that he was not so wedded as all that to State trading but that if we had our way and we went back to private enterprise trading we would still face the Argentine Government with their method of State selling—in other words, we could do no better. That is where I believe the big issue comes in this debate. I believe this debate has shown all along the folly of mixing up meat procurement with commercial transactions and financial tram

sactions. Why the housewife has not got the meat is because this has been mixed up with high finance, diplomacy and commerce.
The Economic Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe he did not have at his side in the Argentine skilled negotiators in the meat trade who had been handling the business before the war, but he had to go along with advisers no doubt from the Ministry of Food.

Mr. J. Edwards: I confined myself to negotiating prices—pilot prices—and quantities of meat. All matters concerning specifications and the like I left to people competent to deal with it—our permanent meat mission there who are a number of people highly competent and perfectly able to undertake that task.

Mr. Turton: I asked whether the hon. Gentleman had by his side to advise him those who had known meat buying before the war and those who had known the meat trade and I understand him to say that he had the permanent officers from the Ministry of Food. It will be corrected by the Minister of Food later if I am wrong.
May I remind the House that the chief meat buyer of the Ministry of Food, Sir Henry Turner, expressed himself perfectly clearly by saying that the system of Government trading had outlived its usefulness, and only as recently as last year we had a clear statement by one of the senior meat negotiators. Senor Derisi, telling the British, "We are prepared to abandon the bulk selling system immediately and to allow our meat to go into private trade provided Britain will reopen Smithfield." That is what we believe should be done in this situation in order to divorce these meat negotiations from commercial negotiations which should be handled by diplomats.

6.44 p.m.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb): This debate has been something in the nature of an anti-climax. It has certainly not been the vivid, exciting occasion I had apprehended and feared and which we have been led to expect. It has certainly not shown any great demonstration of interest on the Opposition benches, since the attendance has not been very large. But I am glad we have had the debate because it has enabled us at least to clear one point out of the way


and I am grateful to the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), who opened the debate, for his co-operation in making it clear that we are not just talking, and have not been talking and negotiating, about meat but have been ranging over a very wide and comprehensive field of trade and commerce with Argentina.
This Agreement and the difficulties associated with it were not really primarily the concern of the Ministry of Food. At least we have been able to show, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman showed it more vividly than anyone else, that it did involve very comprehensive problems of a very complex nature that were not really tuned to the inability of the Ministry of Food to estimate the value of meat at any particular time. That is a change and a variation of approach to this problem and I welcome it. It shows that we are getting somewhere.
Before dealing with the points to which I want to reply in the time at my disposal, I would say that I suppose we would all feel that in the end what the ordinary person, the housewife, wants to know about this debate is what is the result of this Agreement in its effect on her meat ration. I suspect that she will be wondering tonight what is coming out of the debate in the way of news about the meat ration. We shall be able to make some almost immediate improvement in the ration and there will be an increase to take effect from some time between two or three weeks from now.
I want to make this clear from the outset, because on the last occasion, when I had to make a more disagreeable announcement, I did not do so in time. All I can say tonight is that there will be an increase in the meat ration to take effect between two and three weeks from now and that until we know, as we shall know over the next week-end, the exact amounts of entries of home-killed meat in the next few weeks, I cannot make a specific announcement as to date and time. The first improvement will take place about the middle of this month and will be followed by others, and about the end of August, and later, there should be a meat ration in this country which will be broadly double in size, quite apart from price, of that which is now the present ration.
Having made that clear—I think we are entitled to say that ordinary persons will want to know something more specific than the academic debate about price; they will want to know about the ration, and I have given that information—I ask: Was it wrong to resist the demands of the Argentine? After all, the only specific figure we ever had from them was £140 per ton and now we have settled even allowing for all the differences of view about interpretation, an average overall price of £128 per ton.
Therefore, there has been some point in resistance and I cannot understand the complaint of the Opposition about our resisting the original demand of the Argentine because the only price we ever had to consider that was hard, specific, understandable and measurable, was £140 per ton. We said that was unreasonable, unfair, and we could not accept it.

Orders of the Day — Captain Crookshank: £120.

Mr. Webb: I am coming to the £120 in a moment. The only real figure we could accept and measure without some ambiguity as to its significance was, in fact, £140 per ton. Therefore we resisted it. Was it wrong for us to resist paying more money for the food that comes into this country? The Opposition must make up their minds. They cannot assail the Government for not keeping down the cost of living if, at the same time, they assail the Government for trying to keep it down by trying to reduce the price of imported food.
There are only four ways of reducing prices. The first is that of price control. I doubt whether that commends itself to the Opposition, although they may support it for the moment. Another way is by reducing the distribution costs between producer and consumer. I doubt whether that commends itself to the Opposition, but we are working on that. There is the way of subsidy and I doubt whether that commends itself to the Opposition.
The only other way is to refuse to pay more and no country such as ours, dependent for more than half its food supply from outside sources, could cut down the cost of living without showing some resistance to what it considered to be unreasonable demands. That is what we did. Are we to be condemned? If so, the Opposition have no case at all about the cost of


living. The Opposition really must make up their minds on what ground they are challenging the Government.
Now I come to the question of £120 per ton. The figure of £120 per ton offered by the Argentine representatives in December has often been quoted in a loose sort of way as a hard figure. In fact, it was a completely mythical figure.

Captain Crookshank: What about the pamphlets?

Mr. Webb: I am talking about the decisions taken by the Government and not about pamphlets. No responsible Government, until it had secured clear elucidation of what ranges of meat that figure covered, could ever accept it without doing great dis-service to the interest of this country.

Mr. Turton: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he himself said on 8th February:
They made the suggestion that we could arrive at that overall figure of £120 a ton by taking a considerable quantity of chilled beef, instead of frozen beef, and by paying a much higher price for it."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 8th February, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 1969.]

Mr. Webb: That is quite consistent with everything I have said. That has been the whole of our trouble. When we came to the end of the negotiations which broke down the dilemma was to get precision about the amount of chilled meat. We could not get a guarantee about the amount of second quality meat we were going to get. It was not a figure we could have accepted. That is all there is about the £120. There is no great mystery about it. It is a figure we could not have accepted. Now, after careful negotiation and after discussions, we have been able to arrive at a precise estimate of what is available and what we can expect in an overall figure of £128 per ton.

Captain Crookshank: The Economic Secretary denies it.

Mr. Webb: He has not denied it.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: We have all been listening.

Mr. Webb: So have I, and I have followed these things even more closely than the right hon. Gentleman. There is no evasion about this. We have set down in all these negotiations the approximate quantities of meat we supposed we were

going to get. That happens all the time and the figures we arrive at are the figures we expect to get, though in some cases they may be more and in some cases less. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Economic Secretary denied it."] I do not think so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Of course he did."] We shall see that when we read the OFFICIAL REPORT more closely. I think there is no inconsistency between our approaches to this matter.
I wish to deal with some of the important points raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He asked particularly about coarse grains, and why was not coarse grains included in the agreement. This was not intended to be a comprehensive Agreement, covering all our trade arrangements with the Argentine. Indeed, a large number of commodities are excluded. Just as we have not given any commitments over a wide field of our own exports so we have not received any definite commitments about coarse grains on their side.
Instead, both sides intimated the sort of quantities of goods which seemed likely to be available for export and on that basis we arrived at this Agreement; but it is still left open for other commodities which cannot so easily be determined at this time, and one of those is coarse grains. We expect, and I hope we shall get at a reasonable price, adequate quantities of coarse grains from the Argentine. We shall do this in the ordinary way and it will be the job of the joint consultative committee set up under the 1949 Agreement which, as the House knows, has to consider other exports, to go ahead and work out proposals to cover the buying of coarse grains.
The price will be difficult, because the amount of coarse grains available in the world is not adequate for world demand, but when we get a settled price I am reasonably confident that we shall get adequate supplies of coarse grains from that part of the world. But its exclusion from this Agreement does not amount to anything at all—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is only one of a number of commodities which were excluded by common agreement, and which are still subject to other and continuing negotiations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) again voiced her old request that we should


look into the question of marking this meat with the price, quality and cut when it gets into the shops. As she knows, we have looked at that many times and we have not found it practicable. I have asked the butchers to do it voluntarily, and to a large extent many of them have done so. But I am not anxious to make orders which cannot be carried out. The whole process of using Orders in Council and Statutory Instruments would, I believe, be brought into disrepute if it were to be applied when an order could not be satisfactorily carried out. In this case, I am sure it cannot be done. Once we introduce chilled meat into the shops however, a new situation arises. I think then we are entitled to make quite clear this distinction from other meat, and we shall take the necessary steps.
A number of hon. Members opposite referred to the question of bulk buying generally. I do not want to anticipate the results of our present examination of the future organisation of our meat supplies, but I must say that there is a lot of nonsense talked about bulk buying. The issue is not between competitive private buying and State buying. The simple issue is between bulk buying by private monopoly or by publicly controlled agencies. That is the simple, practical issue before us. There has not been competitive buying of meat in the Argentine since 1920. The Plate Conference settled all that a long time ago. There is a completely closed shop regarding the carrying on of bulk buying, and the practical issue is whether it should be bulk buying by private monopoly or bulk buying by State controlled instruments.
The views of this side of the Committee are well known and I do not propose to labour them. In any event, we recognise that bulk buying has its imperfections, and I would agree that we have to consider very carefully how we can insulate the instrument of bulk buying from some of these disadvantages. We

on this side of the Committee are wise enough to see the weaknesses and imperfections of our ideas and to put them right, but, fundamentally, the bulk buying of meat has saved this country hundreds of millions of pounds which would not have been saved by private buying. There is no doubt about that, and the figures show that any return to private purchase would cost consumers in this country far more money than we could afford.
The hon. and gallant Member for Scotstoun (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison) made what I considered a very sensible and realistic speech. I agree with him that this is a much larger issue than the question of meat. He went on to say that somehow we on this side of the Committee had distorted the picture. We had got our commercial arrangements out of perspective and out of proper proportion by distorting and emphasising the meat side of the question. But that is not our responsibility. If there is anybody guilty of distortion and focusing attention on meat the responsibility rests on hon. Members on the opposite side of the Committee. I have repeated over and over again that I was involved in wider issues than my own Departmental considerations.
I think we are all grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for having brought the matter back to proper pro portions and having reminded us of the general matters which are the wider responsibility of every section of the Committee at this time. We may have made mistakes in our approach and handling of this matter. I made one mistake— I overestimated the patriotism of hon. Members on the opposite side of the Committee. I believed that, faced with a situation like this, they would act with responsibility, and would not indulge in rash and reckless exploitation of our difficulties for partisan purposes. Apparently I was wrong. I made a mistake, and that mistake will be apparent to public opinion in this country.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — HANTS AND DORSET BUS COMPANY (DISPUTE)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a further sum, not exceeding £20, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with the Hants and Dorset Omnibus Company Dispute, for the year ending on 31st March, 1952, namely:

Civil Estimates, 1951– 52



£


Class V, Vote 7, Ministry of Labour and National Service
10


Class VI, Vote 14, Ministry of Transport
10


Total
£20

—[Mr. Jay.]

7.1 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: In opening this debate on the Hants and Dorset Omnibus Company dispute, I cannot hope that all I say will be uncontroversial, but I hope that no charge from this side of the Committee will be considered provocative. Above all, I hope that nothing that I shall say will be considered to be a wilful attack on the National Union of Railwaymen. Indeed, I want to set the remarks I make entirely in relation to two extracts from their official paper, "The Railway Review." Both of them are from fairly recent issues. The first, on 2nd February, 1951, said:
The larger the organisation, the more the less enlightened among us get lost in it and I feel that we count very little more than due paying members.
The second quotation is from the issue of one week later, when the paper said:
What has to he emphasised is that the problem is not fundamentally one of amalgamating the unions but of amalgamating the individual members of the unions, of bringing together in one union men and women who work together in one industry or service. Only in such a union is it possible for all who are railwaymen, or all who are agricultural workers, or all who are miners, or all who are local government employees, etc., freely and democratically to express their desires and views. It is the only type of organisation … 
and I draw attention to this—
… that permits them to confer and decide collectively on their common problems and to act collectively in dealing with them.
I hope we shall bear in mind this sentence during this debate and also this, which follows:
Dispersed in different unions, those who work together are denied the possibility of joint decision and joint action.

Those two quotations cover all that I shall say.
I am afraid that we have to go back a number of years to see the origin of the troubles which have broken out so clearly in the Hants and Dorset bus dispute. The roots of the trouble go back to 1932 when the National Union of Railwaymen and the Transport and General Workers' Union made an agreement under which they divided between themselves the road passenger transport services. Some 10 companies were allocated to the National Union of Railwaymen. With two exceptions, the remainder came under the influence of the Transport and General Workers" Union. The test for the division was whether the ownership of a company was in the hands of a private road passenger undertaking or whether it was a subsidiary of a railway company.
At the moment I do not wish to enter into any discussion as to whether such an agreement between two unions to divide an industry between themselves is a good thing or a bad thing. Obviously that must, in the first issue, be a matter for the unions concerned to decide. It would be rash for anybody outside to try to form a judgment. But in the light of those two quotations from "The Railway Review," and the many other comments that we have seen by leaders of the trade union movement recently, it may be that in such decisions many dangers are involved, especially if it is true— as I hope it is— to say that the interests of the individual trade unionist are the real test of the union's worth. If an individual feels that in any union he cannot get his voice put forward and his grievances remedied, then that union is not fulfilling its function.
I would also say that when we think of the size of some of the modern unions, we must realise that it must take ability almost beyond the capability of man for anybody to fulfil properly the functions of general secretary. Equally, it would tax almost any group of men properly to form a national executive, when we consider all the varied interests and occupations which must be covered.
Leaving that aside, we come back to the true test of a union, which is that the individual must not suffer from any of the decisions made between unions: or that a minority, however small, which because


of one of these decisions is attached to a major union, can feel that it has proper representation at headquarters and knows that its views are adequately expressed in the executive committee and at annual general meetings.
This is very true in the case of busmen attached to the National Union of Railwaymen. That union is some 420,000 strong, of which some 8,000 are busmen. That shows that they are a very small minority. With such a small minority it is difficult for them to become elected to any union office, either as a member of the executive committee or as a delegate to the annual general meeting.
In fact, to get elected they must get railway votes. I understand that, since 1945, only one busman has been elected to the executive committee, and he got in because he was able to secure railway votes. But he was the only one. Recently there was an examination for organisers for the National Union of Railwaymen. A busman passed the test very well. Of the five candidates for election he, I think— I would not put it any higher than to say that I think— would have become an organiser if it had been a question of worth. In fact, the railway members who passed the examination received about 20,000 votes and the busman received only 3,000.

Mr. David Jones: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, as a railway signalman, I passed an examination, and was the third highest out of 39 but got less than 3,000 votes? That is not unusual.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If it is not unusual, it makes my case even stronger. Since 1945 the busmen in the National Union of Railwaymen have made every effort, through their grade conferences, to bring their complaints to the notice of the annual general meetings. I am afraid that I must weary the Committee with the gist of resolutions which they have passed, because I think they will show how much these busmen wish to use the machinery of a powerful union like the N.U.R. in order to follow up their own case. In 1945, they passed this resolution:
That this Conference requests the National Executive Committee to have the Head Office Road Passenger Organiser in attendance at all conferences and negotiations

affecting the wages and conditions of busmen members.
In 1946, they passed another resolution:
That this conference deplores the method adopted by Head Office for the election of delegates to the Annual General Meeting whereby the possibility of Busmen being represented thereon is very remote.
In 1947, they passed this further resolution:
That this conference demands direct busman representation on all national bodies of our Union, and that the Rules of the Constitution be so amended as to provide such effective representation and the setting up of Area Councils on a national basis.
At that same conference in 1947 another resolution was passed:
That this conference urges the National Executive Committee to consider the appointment of bus worker members to Organiser's posts for dealing with Busmen's Negotiations.
In 1948—

The Chairman: It is not at all clear how the hon. and gallant Gentleman relates his remarks to the matter of a dispute, which, as I understand it, is the subject of the debate, and is a matter for which the Minister bears some responsibility. I cannot see how the Minister bears any responsibility on this question of the organisation of trade unions.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I apologise, Major Milner. I should have said that this really concerns the position of the National Bus Workers' Association, which was set up because of its failure to secure recognition from the National Union of Railwaymen, and consequent on that, its failure to secure recognition by the responsible Ministers through the omnibus industry. I have felt that it was necessary to take this course so that the Committee should understand why the National Bus Workers' Association was set up.

The Chairman: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will indicate during his speech how the responsibility of the Minister arises in these matters. In what he has said, he clearly has not done that so far.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I apologise, Major Milner. I thought it was better to make my speech in this way, but. if you like, I can certainly bring the Ministers in now. I thought these matters were very relevant. I will only add that in 1949, 1950, and again in 1951, similar resolutions were passed.
During these five years, it was clear that these men, because of the action of the Minister of Labour, were not able to secure representation on the National Council for the Omnibus Industry. Within the N.U.R. the men were deprived of the full-time services of a permanent officer to assist them in their representations, and they were deprived of any representation with one exception on the Executive of the N.U.R.
They also made an alternative proposal that a joint committee should be set up by the Transport and General Workers' Union and the N.U.R. to form one body to meet the requirements of all busmen in this country. This too was turned down and it is in consequence that the National Bus Workers' Association was formed.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Robens): Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain where my responsibility arises in respect of the National Council?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I will, indeed. This Council was set up by a previous Minister of Labour. It is true that it is a voluntary one, but the Minister is responsible in seeing that the terms agreed upon by his Ministry are carried out. That is the first charge. If he is a proper Minister of Labour his first responsibility is to see that the conciliation machinery set up under the auspices of his own Department actually works properly. That is his first charge, and it is no good the Minister pretending that he can just wash his hands and say that it has nothing to do with him.

Mr. Robens: I do not want to mislead either the hon. and gallant Gentleman or the Committee. Nor do I want to wash my hands of any legitimate responsibility which I have, but is the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggesting that I, as Minister of Labour, should interfere with the voluntary machinery agreed upon between employers and workpeople as to its constitution and as to how they shall set up their councils?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am not saying that the Minister should interfere with that machinery. I am making a vital point in regard to the first charge against the Minister, and it is that he should see that the machinery set up by his Ministry is honoured and that it works.
I would ask the Committee to consider the constitution of the National Council for the Omnibus Industry. Article 6 states:
The Council shall consist of not more than 32 members, who shall he appointed, as to one half, by organisations of employers in the industry who have agreed to be party to this constitution, and, as to one half, by trade unions which have membership in the industry and have agreed to be party to this constitution.

Mr. Harry Wallace: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman point out what provision there is for the Minister of Labour to come in and interfere with the work of that body?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The Minister of Labour has the overriding duty to see that conciliation machinery which is set up in this country under his auspices is working, and that, when it is set up with the authority and prestige of his Ministry behind it, it works well.

Mr. Robens: It is quite clear that the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows very little about trade union organisation. When employers and workpeople get together to set up their machinery, and when they believe in voluntary machinery, they probably provide machinery for arbitration arrangements, and, if so, it is their business, and it is their business to see that their arbitration machinery works. If there is any failure of that machinery to work, they would then invite the Minister to give advice, but it is not for him to interfere with the setting up of their industrial organisations.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The Minister is now saying something in anticipation of my remarks. What I was saying was that, where he is a party to the setting up of machinery of this nature, it is his duty to see that it works well. I quite agree that he should not interfere unnecessarily, but we come now to the next point—

Mr. Robens: We must have this point cleared up. I am not a party to that machinery at all. It is a voluntary body, which was set up in 1940.

The Chairman: Would it not be better if the hon. and gallant Gentleman were to follow the terms of the Motion, which, as I understand it, deals with services connected with the Hants and Dorset Omnibus Company dispute? If he would state the facts of that dispute, and show


how the Minister's responsibility arises, that would be a better way of dealing with the matter, rather than by introducing this question of organisation, on which it is very doubtful whether the Minister has any responsibility or not.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I must apologise again, Major Milner. I have been caught up in an argument with the Minister, who has anticipated something that I was going to say. The point is that the National Bus Workers' Association was set up after the failure of negotiations either through the N.U.R. or by asking for joint consultations with the T. and G.W.U., and that it is an Association which quickly secured 90 per cent. of the membership of the union in Dorset, and, therefore, they applied to the National Council for the Omnibus Industry for recognition under Article 6 of that Council's constitution. I think you will agree, Major Milner, that the terms of that Article of the constitution of the National Council for the Omnibus Industry are perfectly clear, showing that it is the duty of the National Council to recognise any union, which has membership within the road passenger transport industry.

Mr. Robens: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this organisation is not a registered trade union?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: So what?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I hope the Minister will not interrupt me on small points. The Association has applied for membership, and the matter is before the Registrar at the moment. The Association was founded only nine months ago, and its application is now before the Registrar, so that I think that interruption is unworthy of the Minister. The Association has done everything it could be secure recognition.
Now, perhaps, I may return to what I was saying. I do not want to be led astray again. This union, with 90 per cent. membership in Hants and Dorset. apply to the National Council for recognition. The Council refer the application to a sub-committee of the Bus Federation, which is composed of unions who already have recognition in one way or another— I am not certain how. The Bus Federation

turned down the application. The union then applied to the Minister of Labour, who says that it has nothing to do with him. They then took the course of saying that there was a dispute between themselves and the management of the Company, because no recognition could be secured. Four matters have been referred to the Minister—

Mr. Proctor (Eccles): Mr. Proctor (Eccles) rose—

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Let me finish this point. Four matters have been referred to the Minister as matters under dispute. He has accepted one and refused three. I ask him this simple question. If all that he has been saying is true that this union is not registered and all the rest of it—why did he accept representations from them as a matter under dispute?

Mr. Robens: Because it was referred to the Minister under Regulation 1305.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The Minister is, by his own remark, responsible, yet he refused the other three, all of which were put to him on the same basis.

Mr. Robens: indicated dissent.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Why did the right hon. Gentleman accept one and refuse three?

Mr. Robens: I have explained why one was accepted and three were refused. One was accepted under Regulation 1305, and that is a statutory obligation that I have.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The others were refused under the same Order.

Mr. Robens: They were refused because they could not be accepted under that Order.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I leave it to the Committee, Major Milner. We have heard all these remarks which have been made about the union and the statement that they may only make representations to the Minister if they are recognised. But the Minister recognised them once and refused them three times.
Then there are other matters which have been referred to the Minister. The Minister of Transport, also, is very much responsible, because under Section 93 of the Transport Act any alteration in schedules has to be reported to


him and he has to be satisfied that those alterations are correct. If he is not satisfied, then under Section 122 of the same Act he may order an inquiry. I ask the Minister of Transport why, when the schedules which led to the recent dispute were received by him, he did not consider it necessary to use his powers and institute an inquiry.
Let us not think that this is a light matter. It is one of considerable importance. Recently employees in the road passenger transport industry were granted an increase of 7s. 6d. a week. Under the new schedules now being operated, the men in Hants and Dorset find that that 7s. 6d. a week has been obliterated, and in an extreme case they are losing 12s. 6d. a week in addition. Is that anything which hon. Members opposite feel is right under a trade union agreement?
Why did not the Minister of Transport inquire into the matter? We have many depots in which there is no representative of the N.U.R. In one case, the schedules at Winchester are referred to a member of the National Union of Railwaymen who comes from Poole, 30 miles away. What can he know about conditions in Winchester? [Interruption.]

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What does the Post Office know of these schedules?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): Enough to stop the hon. Member talking.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I have taken the care to check up, and on many of the occasions when the representatives of some 40 men have been dealing with the interests of over 2,000, they have gone to see the management and they have never talked to anybody else whatever in the depôt. Again, why did not the Minister of Transport, when he knew of these facts, institute an inquiry to see that the rights of the people employed in his nationalised industry were properly protected?
I notice that hon. Members opposite are apt to say, "Here is a breakaway union. Here is the treatment that can be expected if people do this sort of thing." I ask those hon. Members to think again before they say that too loudly. Recently. there has been an example from the National Union of Public Employees,

who have 4,000 members in the electricity industry. I should like to read three sentences from the Executive Council's recommendations, because they form a guide, I suppose, to what has happened in the present dispute:
That over 4,000 trade unionists in the nationalised undertaking should be humiliated, victimised and denied the right to have any say in matters affecting their wages and their working lives appeared to be of no concern to the Trades Union Congress General Council.
I shall not weary the Committee with the other remarks in the same vein, but the Report finishes up—[An HON. MEMBER: "Who is saying this?"]—the Executive Council in the Report of the 37th National Conference of the N.U.P.E. This, again, is relevant to the position of the Minister of Transport in the dispute. The Report goes on to say:
To our members it was apparent that the Unions that had grabbed the Trade Union Side seats were thwarting the intentions of the 1947 Electricity Act and preventing the Electricity Authority from exercising the powers and duties which Parliament had conferred upon it.
That is another union which, it cannot be claimed, is a breakaway union; but as with the National Bus Workers' Association, they are unable to get any remedy through their Minister the Minister of Fuel and Power. These people of whom I am speaking have had no chance of getting a remedy through the Minister of Transport. Their case has simply been dismissed, and they have been left without any remedy whatever. That is something which hon. Members opposite should bear in mind when they consider all these facts.
I come now to a meeting that six Members of Parliament—four Conservative and two Labour—had with the Minister in his room during the time of the strike. I am glad to see that the hon. Members for Southampton, Itchen (M. Morley) and Southampton, Test (Dr. King) are present, because if I say anything wrong they can correct me. At the end of that meeting an agreed communique was issued between the Minister and the Members. Here is the vital passage in it:
As a result of the meeting, Mr. Roberts stated that if the men would return to work, he would advise the Schedule Committee of the Hants and Dorset Bus Company to receive representations from any of the men affected and that he trusted that through such representations any grievance felt by employees of the Hants and Dorset Company would be remedied.


I hope hon. Members will notice the phrase "any of the men." As I understood it, and I hope I shall be corrected by the two hon. Members for Southampton if I am wrong, that phrase meant that two or three of the men in any one depot could go together to see the Schedules Committee. That is what I understood to be the Minister's undertaking. That was turned down flatly by the Company, and the Minister has since tried to make out that that phrase "any of the men" merely meant that any one man could make his own private representation.
I charge the Minister with not being frank at the meeting or keeping to the undertaking that he gave in order to remedy that strike and which we as a joint body, Labour and Conservative M.P.s, passed on to the men in all good faith as a means whereby they could get their injustices remedied. [Interruption.] I have given the facts.

Mr. Monslow: On the basis of the hon. and gallant Member's own literary interpretation.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I leave the Committee to judge.
There is only one other statement which I would bring forward. Do not let hon. Members opposite think that this dispute is something in which local trade union opinion is against the National Bus Workers' Association. At a recent meeting of the Southampton Trades Council, the National Union of Railwaymen tried to pass a vote of censure on the National Bus Workers' Association. That vote of censure was opposed by the Transport and General Workers' Union, the E.T.U. and the A.E.U. Perhaps the most illuminating remark was made by a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union who said:
Both the mover and the seconder work at the docks, and cannot claim to be authorities on things concerning bus drivers and conductors. It is not fair to say that, just because a person has been in a union for two years, he is, or must be, satisfied with what he is getting from that union.
We feel that real harm is being done to trade unionism by Ministers who are not prepared to stand for three simple things—the fundamental rights of a trade unionist, the fundamental rights of a man to join a union which he thinks will best serve his purpose—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about 1926?"] In the Minister of

Transport we have a man who has shown his inability in a public concern, of which he is the political head, to see that men receive proper treatment and proper consideration.
As to the Minister of Labour, we cannot feel that he has acted either as a Minister, in the sense of his wide duties regarding the necessity of seeing that conciliatory machinery is properly used, or that he has stood by the terms of a communiqué issued with his full authority. We feel that great issues are at stake, and that where matters like these arise justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Trade unions have a great part to play in the life of this country, as hon. Members in all parts of the Committee know, but that will not happen if one small union is sacrificed to one which is stronger, or if we have a Minister of Labour or Transport who will not see that justice is truly and properly done.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Morley: The men affected by the dispute we are supposed to be discussing—we heard very little about the dispute from the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre)—were all employed by the Hants and Dorset Bus Company. That company formed a part of the Tilling group, and over a year ago the shares of that group were purchased on behalf of the nation. But though those shares were so purchased, the Hants and Dorset Bus Company has not yet been integrated into the National Transport system. Indeed, to all intents and purposes, the company is still a private company, and its administrators today are exactly the same men who administered it when it was under full private ownership.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: Surely the hon. Gentleman must know that the administrators are now under the direction of the Transport Commission and must obey their orders in every respect.

Mr. Morley: Yes. but they are exactly the same people who administered the concern when it was still a private company.
The bus industry is a new industry. Forty years ago there were very few buses carrying passengers on the roads of


this country, and until quite recently the industry, from a trade union point of view, was very badly organised. Very few bus drivers or conductors were members of any trade union. In fact, a considerable number of private bus companies did all they could at that time to discourage their men from becoming members of a union, and most of the men were afraid to join a union for fear of possible victimisation.
It was not until just before the Second World War that any real attempt was made to organise the bus workers of this country on any considerable scale. The two unions who made that attempt were the Transport and General Workers' Union and the National Union of Railwaymen. In the course of their organising activities they came to an agreement that the National Union of Railwaymen should organise the men employed by those bus companies in which the railways held a large number of shares, and that the Transport and General Workers' Union should organise the men in the other companies.
That seems to me to have been a very fair and reasonable arrangement. It prevented overlapping and rivalry between two great unions. In any case, those were the only two unions at that time which were attempting to organise bus workers. They were both large and powerful unions who were able to give full protection to such workers as joined them. Actually, so far as the Hants and Dorset Bus Company is concerned, real trade unionism did not start in it until the years 1940 and 1941. The man who organised the majority of the workers in the company was Mr. Figgins, who was than an organiser for the National Union of Railwaymen.

Mr. John Hynd: Will my hon. Friend allow me to make a slight correction? The first man to organise the men in that company was a Mr. Platt who was dismissed by the company for his activities.

Mr. Morley: But the man who effectively organised the men in that company in the years 1940 and 1941 was Mr. Figgins who was then the General Organiser and not the General Secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen. Of course, during the war years a large number of bus drivers and conductors employed by that company were engaged

on active service. When they returned to civil employment, they all joined the National Union of Railwaymen, and for some years up to last year were enthusiastic members of that union.
The men who are now members of the National Bus Workers' Association were for six years very keen members of the National Union of Railwaymen. Indeed, it was those men who negotiated an agreement with the company that the only union to be recognised for purposes of negotiation on behalf of its employees should be the National Union of Railwaymen. I am personally acquainted with most of the local union leaders employed by the Hants and Dorset Bus Company. For the most part they are young, able and enthusiastic men. They threw themselves very eagerly into the work of the National Union of Railwaymen. They had a somewhat difficult task because some of them were new to the trade union movement and expected results to be obtained more quickly than in fact occurred.
There is no doubt that for the first five or six years after the war these men were enthusiastic members of the National Union of Railwaymen. Then certain doubts began to creep in. They began to assert that the National Union of Railwaymen was more concerned with looking after the interests of railwaymen than with those of busmen, although it must be stated that at the time this was being said there was a busman on the Executive Committee of the Union.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: indicated dissent.

Mr. Morley: There was a busman on the Executive Committee of the National Union of Railwaymen in 1947 and 1948, and he was not, as the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest said, the only busman who had ever served on the Executive of that Union. A busman had been elected to its National Executive before him. In fact, he succeeded that busman who had been on the National Executive of the N.U.R. because that particular busman had been given an organising job inside that Union.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: It so happened that the one who was elected was a busman and that the runner-up in that year was also a busman who, when the first busman went, succeeded him.

Mr. Morley: The man elected was elected with a large majority, and a large number of railwaymen voted for his election to the Executive Committee of the N.U.R. In addition, the N.U.R. had two organisers whose concern was the interests of the busmen. This second busman was a Mr. Baker, and it appears that Mr. Baker, who was a member of the Executive of the N.U.R. was intriguing behind the backs of that Executive, without the knowledge of the members of the Executive, to form a breakaway organisation—the National Busworkers' Association. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member approves conduct like that.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: This is a serious charge which the hon. Member has made. I hope he will prove it.

Mr. Morley: He was a member of the Union while the National Bus Association was being formed. He was instrumental in forming this National Bus Association whilst he was still a member of the Executive Committee of the National Union of Railwaymen. The hon. and gallant Member had a very distinguished Army career and rose to the rank of a full colonel. I wonder what he would have thought if, when he was in command of a unit, his adjutant had made arrangements to take a platoon over to the enemy. That would not be in the best traditions of the Marines.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he has made this charge against this man saying that he was a member of the National Executive of a great union and at the same time was planning to form a breakaway union. Will he please give us proof of that statement?

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) who is going to speak later—[HON. MEMBERS: "Will speak?"] I meant to say that if he is fortunate enough to be called he will give full proof with all the dates.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: So the hon. Member for lichen (Mr. Morley) does not know himself.

Mr. Morley: I have not brought with me for the purpose of this debate the particulars of the dates and times, but if my hon. Friend is fortunate enough to be called he will furnish the hon. and gallent

Member with all the dates necessary to confirm the statement I have just made.
The men concerned made the mistake of breaking away from the National Union of Railwaymen and forming themselves into a new organisation. In doing that, of course, they put themselves in the wrong entirely with the whole trade union movement of this country. The trade union movement is very strongly opposed indeed to breakaway organisations, for very clear and obvious reasons. If every section of a trade union which has a grievance breaks away and forms a separate trade union the movement will be split up into warring factions. They will be more concerned with fighting one another than with obtaining improvement in the wages and conditions of their members. In those circumstances it would be impossible to set up proper negotiating machinery.
One could not have a negotiating body on one side of which there would be representatives of employers all united on the course of action they wished to pursue, and on the other side a number of different trade unions representing the industry but more concerned with scoring points over one another in the course of the negotiations and defending specific claims than with improving the conditions of their men.
Apart from that, the wages of busmen are decided by national negotiation. They are determined by the National Bus Council, and this breakaway organisation has no representation on that Council. As it comprises only about 5,000 members at the most out of over 100.000 bus workers in this country, it is not very likely that it would be given recognition by the National Bus Council. As the integration of our transport system proceeds, the railway system and the bus system will become more closely integrated and the fortunes of railwaymen and of busmen will be more and more closely knit together. They will rise and fall together. What will affect the fortunes of the railwaymen will affect the fortunes of busmen. Therefore, it seems to me there is a very strong argument for one union comprising both railwaymen and busmen.
So far as I was personally concerned, and as far as my colleague in the representation of Southampton my hon. Friend the Member for the Test Division (Dr. King)


dispute we did not take sides as between the National Union of Railwaymen and the National Busmen's Association. But of course we were extremely anxious to bring this dispute to an end as rapidly as possible, because the dispute was causing extreme inconvenience to the general public of Southampton and the surrounding districts, and especially to working-class people who were unable to get to and from their work. It was also lowering the takings of the shop-keepers in the district.
Without taking sides between the Union and the Association we did our best to see if we could not find some means of getting the men back to work on terms which would be satisfactory to them. First of all, we saw officials of the Hants and Dorset Bus Company and suggested to them that they should receive a deputation from the men on strike— a deputation not representing the breakaway union but representing the men as individual strikers. The Hants and Dorset Bus Company's administration refused to accept that idea.
Then we applied to the Minister and asked if he would see us. He arranged a day and time upon which he would do so. When that day and time arrived we found, somewhat to our surprise, that present at the interview in addition to my hon. Friend and myself were a number of Conservative Members of Parliament who, having heard of this interview, had come to join us.

Mr. Peter Smithers: Will the hon. Member allow me?

Mr. Morley: I do not want to take up too much time.

Mr. P. Smithers: The hon. Member is mis-representing the truth.

Mr. Morley: The hon. Member can speak later on. [An HON. MEMBER: "If he catches the bus."] As a result of our interview the Minister stated that if the men would return to work he would advise the Schedule Committee of the Hants and Dorset Company to receive representations from any of the men affected. He trusted that by such representations any grievances felt by the employees of the company would be remedied. The Members of Parliament thanked the Minister and hoped the men would accept that offer.
This offer was telephoned to the men concerned who were holding a meeting, and they accepted the offer as being sufficient on which they could return to work with a reasonable prospect that their grievances would be dealt with. I do not think the Minister could have made a better offer than that. I think it would have been quite impossible for the Minister to have made an offer which implied the recognition of this breakaway union as the negotiating body. If he had made an offer of that kind he would have had the whole of the trade union movement throughout the country against him. No Minister of Labour, whether a Conservative or a Labour Minister, who upset the whole of the trade union movement of this country would hold his office very long.
It is true, as the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest said, that we did understand from what the Minister said that it would not be a case of one man going to see the Schedules Committee of the bus company but two or three men could go together or even, if necessary, half a dozen men, so long as they went as individual employees of the bus company and not as representatives of this new breakaway organisation.
I should like to know from the Minister— because this is very important—if he still stands by that assurance which he gave us on the occasion of that interview. If he does still stand by that assurance there is no reason why the men should not go in twos and threes, as employees and not as members of any trade union, and discuss their grievances about the schedules. That was the assurance given to us by the Minister and that is how we all interpreted it at the time. So long as the union is not recognised as a negotiating body there can surely be no harm in two or three men going and seeing the Schedules Committee of the Hants and Dorset Bus Company.

Mr. Percy Wells: Except that they might all return with a different version of what was agreed.

Mr. Morley: They would go to report about their grievances concerning the schedules. Of course, I do not know what will be the future of this dispute. I should imagine, and the advice that I would give to the men concerned would be. that they should return to the


membership of the National Union of Railwaymen, having received a guarantee beforehand from the National Union of Railwaymen that a bus section within that union would be set up with a fair degree of autonomy. If they do not do that it means that they will go on trying to add to their membership and incurring the hostility of the trade union movement throughout the country. Perhaps it will be years before they will have sufficient membership to justify having any seat upon the National Bus Council or upon any negotiating or representative body.
I must say that the freedom of trade unionism seems to have gathered some very strange and unusual champions here this afternoon. The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest supported the freedom of trade union action, and he belongs to the party which passed the Trades Dispute Act, 1927, which tried to cripple the freedom of trade union action as much as possible and forbade trade union members in the Civil Service to join the T.U.C. even if a majority of the members desired to do so.
I realise that hon. Members opposite are ready to use any stick to beat the Government or to weaken the trade union movement, and they believe this dispute provides a good opportunity for them to do so. I should imagine, however, that when the bus workers of Hampshire read the report of this evening's debate in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow they will say to themselves:
… I fear the Greeks even when they bring gifts.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect the well-known quotation from Federick Engels, one of the founders of Communism, who said that the Tory Party gave the trade unions their first chance?

Mr. Morley: Recognition of the trade union movement in this country was won through years of intensive effort. I imagine that after the Minister has replied this evening hon. Members opposite will find that the stick which they thought they could use against him has been applied to their own backs.
I hope that the Minister will stand by his statement which he made at that interview and will so offer a method,

temporarily at least, of finishing this dispute, and of bringing about circumstances which will allow the men to return to the National Union of Railwaymen and again to be active members of that union as they were in years past.

7.56 p.m.

Major Wheatley: The hon. Member for the Itchen Division of Southampton (Mr. Morley) drew a poor sort of picture when he spoke of the breakaway union and asked how we could put up with that sort of thing, with a lot of unions all over the place. The National Union of Railwaymen is a railway union, and these busmen want to have a union of their own.

Mr. Pannell: On a point of order. I believe it is the custom for Members to declare their interest. This is a debate about trade unionism. Would it not be better if hon. Members declared their trade union membership or their association with employers' organisations?

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think it is necessary to declare one's interest in such organisations.

Major Wheatley: If it were intended to start a breakaway union of railwaymen I could understand the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but since they want to start a union for busmen I cannot see the relevance of his remarks.
The hon. Gentleman also asserted that we on this side of the Committee are showing a strange interest in trade unionism. It may interest him to know how I became involved in this question. The reason was that the strikers in three depots invited me, through the Labour agent in my constituency, to go and see them. Having failed to get any help from their own union, they turned to their local Member of Parliament because they thought they would get more justice.
I want to confine my remarks to the narrow question of the dispute. I do not want to go into the whole history of trade unionism. I was brought into this at the request of the men themselves. I attended a mass meeting held by three depots and discussed the matter with them. I made it clear that I was not there as a politician. I was there as the Member of Parliament for the division in which this is the only operating bus company, and naturally when there is a dispute like this causing


a great deal of distress and hardship to my constituents it is my business to do my best to see whether this dispute can be brought to an end. That was my only aim. There was no question of breaking up the union. I did not discuss with them the question of the breakaway union. I discussed how we should get them back to work and the buses on the road again.
I discussed it with them—they were extremely grateful for the opportunity—and it was agreed that I should go to see the assistant general manager in Bournemouth. Here I would cross swords with the hon. Member for Itchen; my experience was entirely different from his. The assistant manager was quite willing that his officials should meet informally representatives of the bus workers. I went back again to see the executive committee of the workers. They were quite agreeable to that suggestion, but said they must first call a bigger meeting of more depots. To them, however, that seemed a way in which they could get the men to go back to work.
Of course, at the bottom of the whole dispute, quite apart from this business of a breakaway union, is the question of their being able to explain their attitude to the company as they did, they said, in the old days before they had any trade union. They were then able to deal direct with the managers and get their grievances attended to.

Mr. Keenan: Is that why they joined the union?

Major Wheatley: That is the history; I know it personally. Hon. Members opposite are jeering because they think I am talking against trade unionism. I am not. I am in favour of trade unionism.
After that, arrangements were made, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Itchen. Other hon. Members also talked to the men on the same lines. It was, of course, the only reasonable way of getting the men to go back to work. After that, we met the Minister, who was very sympathetic and tried to help. He made suggestions himself. He said, "I will instruct my representatives in Winchester to suggest to the schedules committee of the company not to have too much red tape, but to see these fellows if they come in two or three at a

time, and if the men talk about other routes in the schedules with which they are not personally concerned, I will suggest that the company should not turn them down."
Then came the telegram which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre} has read, and eventually the men went back to work. They never met a schedules committee because there is no schedules committee of the bus company. What happens is that any man in a depôt. has the right to go to see the superintendent of that depot and voice any grievance he may have. The men have not gone on strike again at the moment. As my hon. and gallant Friend pointed out, these schedules cut down their earning power. As they put it to me, "The bus company officials have had instructions from above that they must cut down expenses." The men say that the officials started by cutting down their pay—not cutting down their basic pay but cutting down their chances of getting overtime.
The reason why the men are now working the schedules is that they are able to get their overtime, even on these schedules. That is principally because at least 200 men left the bus company as a result of the strike and went to earn higher wages in surrounding industries. Moreover, the summer services are now operating. It has been suggested that the men will come out again on strike in the winter, when the summer services are ended, but I am told that the great difficulty of getting platform staff will continue and that there will still be the opportunity to work overtime.
As I see it, it is the duty of the Minister of Labour, whatever the rules and regulations may be, to leave no stone unturned to see that the grievance of these men is properly heard. It is no good going through these lengthy channels and introducing the question of breakaway unions. Somehow he must get down to the reasons for this dispute. Here we have 2,000 men or thereabouts who are dissatisfied. There is no doubt about that; they are obviously dissatisfied and unhappy. I have heard from both sides —from men who have remained in the National Union of Railwaymen and from men who have joined the Bus Workers' Association, and they have all said that they fear persecution from one side or the


other. They both make the same accusations. It is clear to me that they are really unhappy and anxious.
I cannot dismiss from my mind a feeling that the Minister, with all his resources and all his anxieties to put an end to this sort of dispute, must be able to find a way to deal with it. There is no doubt that this sort of dispute will arise in other parts of the country. Indeed, it already has arisen. There must be some way in which, if the Minister puts his mind to it and employs all his resources, he can find out the cause of the trouble. When one knows the cause one is able to find some way of overcoming the problem.
Perhaps I can epitomise the men's feeling in a remark made to me by the secretary of one of the depôts. He said, "You know, Sir, I still believe in nationalisation as told to me. But the present set-up is no good to the worker." He said that to me after I had had my discussion with them. That is what they are feeling and why they are unhappy. The men do not want to strike; there was no viciousness about them; they were only too anxious to accept any sort of solution I might suggest as being possible. The public, too. suffered a great deal as a result of the dispute, for all the transport in my constituency stopped when the men went on strike. The men were only too willing to give me an assurance while the strike continued that they would end those stupid practices of picketting in which one man has already lost his life.
I want to make it quite clear that the men are not vicious; they want to get on with their job. The Minister is the only person to whom they can appeal now. They have no intermediary; there is nobody near at hand to whom they can appeal, and it seems to me that that is where the responsibility lies. From the Minister's sympathetic attitude when we saw him, I feel confident that if he puts his mind to it he will find a solution to this difficulty.

.8.8 p.m.

Mr. David Jones: If the creators of the modern trade union movement, with all the difficulties they had, were to rise in their graves and see the new champions of trade unionism advocating breakaway unions in the House they would not be amazed. When

I saw this subject down for discussion I wondered whether the Conservative Central Office had had anything to do with it. At the present moment, evidence about that is staring me in the face.
May I say, to begin my remarks, that the N.U.R. constitution has contained these words ever since 1930:
The objects of the union shall be to secure the complete organisation of all workers employed on or in connection with any railway or transport undertaking in which any railway company has a financial interest in Great Britain or Eire.
When the hon. and gallant Member for Poole (Major Wheatley) says that the N.U.R. is purely a railway organisation, it seems that he does not understand the situation in which he has taken an interest. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) made a very sound point a moment ago in his suggestion when he suggested that every Member taking part in the debate ought to declare his interest. I do so willingly. I have been— and still am—a member of the National Union of Railwaymen.
For a number of years in my spare moments I attempted to organise some of the unorganised bus workers of this country, against very much hostility on the part of the employers. Indeed. I have recollections of attempting to organise the unorganised bus workers into the National Union of Railwaymen because the bus company concerned was one in which the railway company had a financial interest and the men were eligible for membership.
Therefore, I suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that he is quite wrong when he suggests that the N.U.R. has not had a busman for a long period within its membership. If the argument which the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) sought to advance is that it is only busmen who understand bus conditions, I wonder how he, who probably has never seen a bus except as a passenger, dares to come here and talk about busmen's conditions.
He went on to say that there is only one busman who has ever been on the Executive of the N.U.R. That is quite untrue. In the last three or four years there have been two. One of the prime movers in this Hants and Dorset Company dispute was one. He replaced the bus driver who had been elected an organiser by ballot vote of the whole of the membership of this Union. How then can it


be argued that the bus workers of this country have not had representation on the Executive Committee and at the annual general meeting? The annual general meeting is meeting at the present moment in a town not far away. It will be found that a number of bus workers are in fact representing their bus areas at that annual conference.
I was rather amused at the reference of the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest to grade conferences. These grade conferences had been sanctioned by the Executive of the N.U.R. How, therefore, can it be argued that the bus workers inside this union were not being given reasonable representation when the actual conference at which the resolution which he quotes was passed and actually sanctioned and in part paid for by the central funds of the organisation.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: My point was not that. My point was that no attention was paid at the annual general meeting to the resolution passed by the grade conference.

Mr. Jones: What I am pointing out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman is that this annual conference at which the resolution was passed was a conference of busmen inside the N.U.R., sanctioned by and paid for in part by the contributions of the ordinary workers. Indeed, we have a large number of grade conferences, but the final arbitrator as to whether the resolutions are in the general interest of the membership of the Union is left to the Executive. I have taken part, as have many other hon. Members on this side, in grade conferences in other cases. I was a railway signalman and attended and took part in the signalmen's conferences. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) represented the passenger guards. We did not vote for a separate organisation because every resolution passed by these grade conferences was not immediately implemented by the Executive Committee. All this shows the complete lack of knowledge of the hon. and gallant Gentleman of trade union work.
He then went on to talk about the National Bus Council. What he did not say was that the Bus Federation, which is the employees' side of the National Bus Council, has upon it representing the N.U.R. two working busmen, one of

whom was the main leader of this breakaway union, elected by the whole of the membership. Indeed, the gentleman referred to actually represented me on the Executive Committee because I happen to be a member in the district for which he was elected. He and another bus driver from the north of England actually represented the N.U.R. on the Bus Federation. How, therefore, can it be argued that bus men were not given a fair opportunity?
Let me come to a most important point on which the hon. and gallant Member sought information. My hon. Friend the Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley) said that the gentleman who is now the general secretary of the new bus workers' association actually took part in the formation of this breakaway union while he was still a member of the N.U.R. Executive. On the 25th of September, 1950, on the information of a letter written by the gentleman himself within the last two or three days, the National Bus Workers' Association was formed. On 30th September that gentleman wrote a letter to the General Secretary of the N.U.R. intimating that he desired to resign from the Executive Committee. The letter, which was submitted to the Executive, was dated 30th September, five days after, on his own admission, the National Bus Workers Association was formed.
But even that is not all the story. As a result of information received by the Executive Committee that the gentleman referred to had resigned some eight days before the information was received, that he was responsible primarily for the organisation of this new union, the General Secretary, on 9th October, wrote to Mr. Baker— there is no reason to hide his name; he has misled too many people in Hampshire to hide his name at this stage— telling him that information had come to hand suggesting that he was the prime mover in setting up a rival organisation to enrol bus workers. He was asked to give an assurance that his activities would cease.
The Executive met on 14th October and no reply had been received from Mr. Baker. They then decided to suspend him from office, and asked him to appear before the Executive Committee on 18th October to give reasons why he should not be expelled from the Union. On 17th October, 22 days after the formation of


the Union, a letter was written by this gentleman to the General Secretary intimating he was no longer a member of the N.U.R. In other words, he resigned from the membership 22 days after he took an active part in forming the organisation, which attempted immediately to wean members from the N.U.R. He would have been paid up to the 30th September for any work he did. There is no doubt that this gentleman was actively associated with the formation of this breakaway Union at least five days, if not earlier, before he left the Executive Committee.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I have not got the full particulars of the dates, but I think it is true to say, in Mr. Baker's defence, that at no time subsequent to the formation of the union did he take any part whatsoever in any activity of the National Union of Railwaymen.

Mr. Jones: It is perfectly true that at no time between 25th and 30th September did he take any part, but—

Mr. Pannell: But did he take the N.U.R.'s money during that period?

Mr. Jones: — that is not to Mr. Baker's credit. There was no meeting of the Executive during those five days. Had there been it is probable he would have attended.

Major Wheatley: Is the hon. Member aware that there are still 18 or 20 N.U.R. men in the bus undertaking with a dual membership? They do not seem to find it incompatible with their duty to the N.U.R. to belong also to the National Bus Workers' Union.

Mr. Jones: They were not members of the National Executive, and for the information of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the membership of the N.U.R. in the Hants and Dorset Company on 16th June was substantially in excess of the figure he has mentioned now. I can give him the figures, if he cares to have them.
Let me turn to something else. The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest had something to say about schedules. I wonder if he knows what a schedule is. He alleges that the new schedule would reduce the wages of the workers of the Hants and Dorset Company by 7s. 6d. per week. What did the schedule seek

to do? It sought to include in the daily working time of the drivers and conductors of the Hants and Dorset Bus Company work which had formerly been paid for at overtime rates. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] All right, I will prove it.
What the Hants and Dorset Bus Company sought to do was what hon. Gentlemen opposite have frequently thrown across the Floor of the House, namely, to increase the efficiency of their industry. According to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends, the men complained that the new schedule sought to rob them of over time which they had formerly worked. In other words, the new schedule sought to incorporate in the daily work that which had previously been paid for at overtime rates. The company were seeking to make themselves more efficient by getting a greater proportion of the working time out of the men, rather than allow so much standing at bus terminus. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite object to that, providing that it is within reason and that a reasonable time is allowed?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The hon. Gentleman talks about schedules. Is he aware that, taking the Lymington schedule, a bus on a busy route may be asked to make a turn-round in one minute.

Mr. Jones: I will give the hon. and gallant Member the figures for Lymington. Under the old arrangement, drivers were asked to work 46 hours 28 minutes per week, on an average, for which they were paid in respect of 50 hours, 31 minutes. Under the new Schedules they would work 46 hours, 31 minutes per week, for which they would be paid as for 50 hours, 31 minutes. I will concede the point that we might find one particular duty in this Schedule which reduces the wages further but, taking the whole of the drivers schedule at Lymington they simply lost the difference between £6 14c. 4.1. and £6 13s. 9d. on an average. If the details are wanted for conductors they are: from 46.37 to 40.31 and 50.31 to 50.27, or a reduction from £6 8s. to £6 7s. 5d.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: To conclude my point, not only have wages gone down—

Mrs. Jones: By 7s. 6d. I wish the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not


mix wages, dates and earnings. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are fond, in their propaganda in the country, of talking about wages and earnings being different. Let us stick to that point tonight. We are talking about the wages which the bus workers received on an average from the schedule of duties which they are called upon to undertake and to which they said they objected. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants any other data I can give it to him. I have it all here.
The hon. and gallant Member for Poole argued that this trade union—and the National Bus Workers Association made no bones about it at all—were out for their members to obtain all the overtime pay they could outside the schedule. In other words, they wanted as little duty as possible put in the schedule and the remainder of the work paid for as overtime.

Major Wheatley: I am not complaining about the schedule; I am only telling what the men's grievance was. The way they spoke about it was that they are losing their overtime, and they also said that they were losing the 7s. 6d. which had been granted to them. They said that the 7s. 6d. was "washed out." It does not matter whether the money is ordinary pay or what it is; they say they are losing 7s. 6d.

Mr. Jones: I gather now that the Conservative Party is arguing that as little work as possible ought to be done in the working day so that the men can get as much overtime as possible at the end of the day. I do not deny that as a result of working less overtime some of these men did not have as much in their pay packet after the introduction of the new schedules as before, but that is a different proposition. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman now suggesting that if an industry can make itself more efficient by reducing overtime it ought to pay its workers for the time they do not work? Will he advise his friends in private enterprise to that effect? Is that his argument?

Major Wheatley: That is not my argument at all. I never used that argument. The hon. Gentleman is saying that the Conservative Party has used an argument and then he proceeds to knock it down; but we have never said any such thing. We have only explained the grievances of the men. It is the men who are

aggrieved. We do not say that they should be paid for nothing. We should be the last to suggest that. What we say is that the labourer is worthy of his hire.

Mr. Jones: I concede that point immediately. Neither do I desire that any man should not be paid his worth. I suffered from that sort of thing far too long. I was a member of the railway staff when plate-layers were getting £2 a week. There is no point in telling me about low wages, for I know all about them. What I am saying to the hon. and gallant Gentleman is that when a company seeks to increase the efficiency of its undertaking by incorporating overtime work in its daily schedule it is not the job of Tory hon. Members for Hampshire to get the Tory Central Office to organise an agitation.
We are told by the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest that the bus workers of the Hants and Dorset Company have never had a square deal from the N.U.R.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I never said that.

Mr. Jones: The whole burden of the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was that 8,000 bus drivers had been almost crushed out of existence by 420,000 railwaymen.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre rose—

Mr. Jones: I cannot give way again. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has had a fair innings. I have been subjected to a far more rigorous cross-examination than would have been the case if our positions had been reversed. The whole burden of his speech was that the small body of busmen had not been given an opportunity to express themselves.
In 1941 an agreement was reached, through the National Bus Council, between the Hants and Dorset Company and the N.U.R., and that agreement has since been improved on a number of occasions. Mr. Baker, who has been the subject of so much examination, was the local secretary of the N.U.R. branch at Bournemouth for many years and he basked in the sunshine of a good deal of the credit for these improvements and he increased his stature amongst the Hants and Dorset busmen as a result of his work in the N.U.R. He was, indeed, the chairman of the Central Committee


of the Hants and Dorset Bus Company, and the influence of his position enhanced his reputation a good deal with his fellow workers, and he then took the steps I have already described to form the breakaway union.
The first step after the formation of the breakaway union was to endeavour to get recognition. They were informed by the management that there was an agreement between themselves and the N.U.R., that they were subject to the decision of the National Bus Council and that, therefore, their application for recognition could not be granted. They then applied to the National Bus Council. That application was declined because the view was taken by the Council, on which there were other trade unions represented as well as the employers, that the Hants and Dorset busmen were already adequately represented.
Then they started a nuisance policy—slow working for short periods at a time, mass booking on late at depôts, scores of drivers and conductors coming in up to an hour late—in the hope that victimisation would result and that they could start a row before this strike on schedules had started. I wonder if the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest was told all this of using service buses to drive staff to union meetings and taking them off the schedule?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: indicated assent.

Mr. Jones: Of course he has not been told about it. The simple fact is that the schedule at the depôt where the dispute took place was posted on 1st May, and there is a regulation that complaints against the schedule must be made within a stipulated number of days, which is less than 14. None of these complaints against the schedule at this depôt was made until 14 days had elapsed and, remarkably enough, all the complaints appeared on stencilled forms identical in character—a most remarkable coincidence. The Secretary of the Central Committee, Mr. Dare, was seen by officials of the N.U.R. on 22nd May. He identified the schedule J as the one agreed to by the Schedules Committee.
I say to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that it does not fall very satisfactorily from their mouths, or very intelligently either, now to pose as the

champions of trade unions. I hope the Hants and Dorset busmen will remember what the party of the hon. and gallant Gentleman did when they were on this side of the House, and what they have threatened to do again if the people of this country send them back here. I hope they will remember it. Whatever complaints the Hants and Dorset busmen may have—they probably have hundreds in the course of a year. I want them to remember that the Tory Party are interested only in using anything and everything that arises to attempt to beat this Government.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Peter Smithers: The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), whose speech I enjoyed very much, started by telling us that he had spent his life in trade unionism, and he even intervened earlier in the debate to tell us how successfully he passed his examination, on which we on this side, I am sure, congratulate him. Then he chided my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) for taking part in the debate because he did not have the same profound knowledge of trade unionism.

Mr. D. Jones: What I sought to point out was that if the theory being advanced in support of the strike was sound, neither the hon. and gallant Member nor the hon. Member himself ought to take part in the debate because their case is that only busmen understand bus conditions.

Mr. Smithers: The hon. Member confirms what I was about to say. If it were the case that nobody should take part in a debate in the House unless he could claim to be an expert in his subject, it would be a poor look-out for our constituents. I shall have occasion to be very severe on the hon. Member if I find him taking part, for example, in a colonial affairs debate or in any debate on other than trade union topics.
It seems to me that this House is a quite unsuitable place for us to try the issue of the suitability or unsuitability of schedules, to indulge in an examination of the relative merits of one union or another, or to go into the character and record of Mr. Baker or of any other person. The reason why I intervene in the debate is because the dispute and the


strike broke out in my constituency. It was at the Winchester depot that the principal part of the strike occurred.
Real hardship and inconvenience is caused in a country district by a strike of this sort. The Minister is not, I think, a countryman and he may not, perhaps, appreciate the difference between a breakdown of transport in urban areas and in rural areas. In the rural areas of my constituency which are served by the Hants and Dorset company a strike of this description has most serious consequences for people who do not have private means of transport. Not merely is it inconvenient to them, but their livelihood, which often depends upon this form of transport, is seriously interfered with. I think it is right, therefore, that today we should ask the Minister to take serious notice of the matter, because we do not want a recurrence of this difficulty.
I think that no serious stoppage took place in the company until this inter-union dispute arose, and if we are to avoid the danger of future stoppages and disputes the question of inter-union trouble must be tackled. The speech of the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley) bears me out in that. I think there is general agreement among all Members whose constituencies are served by the company that we want to be assured that the Minister is taking every action open to him to safeguard our constituents against any repetition of this difficulty.
I turn now to the position of the men in the two depôts in my constituency; one is at Winchester, and the other at Eastleigh. These men allege that they were never adequately represented in the N.U.R. I do not pretend to say whether that is true. It is, obviously, as the speeches so far show, a very controversial question, and certainly not one into which there is any profit in our entering here. The important point is the one made in a broader sense by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Poole (Major Wheatley) that that is what the men think. They think that they did not get proper representation in the N.U.R.
I understand that at the Winchester depôt there are only two N.U.R. members, and at the Eastleigh depôt, none. It may be more accurate to say that all

the men at the Eastleigh depôt belong to the N.B.A. and that at Winchester all but two belong to it. There may be some who belong to both.
I think those figures prove conclusively that these men did not think they had proper representation in the N.U.R., or would get it, and that difficulty has to be tackled. The broad answer given by people who take the view that the position is quite satisfactory seems to be that the machinery for negotiation exists and, therefore, it ought to be made use of. It is not, in fact, made use of. The fact is that from a psychological point of view we have reached a point where the machinery of the N.U.R. will not be made use of by these men—

Mr. Awbery: By a breakaway union.

Mr. Smothers: —not in the present circumstances, whatever the hon. Member likes to call it. Those are the hard facts of the case and why the strike came about. I hope it will be generally agreed, as I think it should be on both sides of the House, that we have a thoroughly unsatisfactory position in this industry.

Mr. Awbery: Will the hon. Member agree that it has only been unsatisfactory since last September, when the breakaway union was formed? Before that there was peace in the industry in that area.

Mr. Smithers: I am not going to be drawn into the question of why it is unsatisfactory, nor the reason it came about. It really is not profitable to start a trade union war here. We have to deal with the situation as we find it and the situation is that the machinery for negotiations is not working.

Mr. John Cooper: Has the hon. Member taken the usual precaution taken by trade union officials, when difficulties arise, of satisfying himself that there was some justification for and some facts behind the alleged grievances, instead of trotting out those grievances without any supporting evidence?

Mr. Smithers: Is the hon. Member referring to the schedules?

Mr. Cooper: No. To the grievance that the men were not properly represented in the union.

Mr. Smithers: I tried to make clear to the Committee that these men think they have a grievance. They may be wrong. I do not know, but as long as they think that, the machinery of consultation will not work, somehow or other it has to be put right. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is there."] It is there, but it will not work; that is why we had a strike.
I can only see three ways in which consultations can be started again in this industry. One way is to try to get these men back into the N.U.R. The second way is to recognise the other union, and the third way is to try to get them into some third union, the Transport and General Workers' Union, or some other organisation. I certainly do not think we ought to try to pronounce on that tonight, but in this highly technical matter there is only one person who now can intervene and help and that is the Minister. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Poole made that clear.

Mr. J. Cooper: indicated dissent.

Mr. Smithers: I see the hon. Member shaking his head but if the Minister cannot solve the difficulty, what is the solution? Are we to go on with a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, a sort of local civil war going on and public transport having a breakdown? If there is a solution and some magical way in which the difficulties can be got over other than by recourse to the Minister, I shall be glad to hear of it.
I come to the conduct of the company. I think the company is in some ways open to censure. I am not concerned with the merits or demerits of the schedules. Probably on examination quite a good case could be made out for the new schedules, but I think the company handled this matter extremely clumsily. Their attitude has been that this machinery for negotiation exists, that it has been used, and therefore the schedules are agreed. Of course, according to the letter of the law, if I may so put it, they are correct, but they have been concluding this agreement with what is, in effect, a tiny minority of the men. To take that attitude is, I think, a very ostrich-like posture on the part of the company and I do not commend it.
At the Winchester depot, where the strike broke out, there were several complicating factors. The Winchester depot

men were promised that the schedules inspector (from the company's office) would see them and discuss their schedules with them. He never came, and subsequent inquiries revealed that he was busy elsewhere. They waited until the Friday before the Sunday when the schedules were due to come into operation and, when they had not had this visit, when they were as they thought faced with the alternative of working the schedules without having discussed them, or else striking, they struck.
There is one other point in connection with the outbreak of this strike which, I think, ought to be criticised here. I understand that the other depots in the area were at this point given a week's grace before the schedules were put into operation, but the Winchester men were required to work them immediately. The men believe, rightly or not, that this was an attempt on the part of the company to break the resistance of the men at the Winchester depot in the belief that all the others would then follow. If that was so, I think it was a very clumsy and tactless thing for the company to do. It put the men on the spot. They felt they must strike, or otherwise they would be letting down their brethren in other depots, and it was one of the contributory reasons for the strike.
Whether they were justified in thinking that, I do not know, but sure I am of this, that if this matter had been properly handled the general manager of the company would have come over to that depot and talked to those men—let alone send his schedules inspector—and the thing could have been settled and there need never have been a strike at all. That is my belief. I was invited into this matter by the men, who, as a matter of fact, took me out of the annual civic dinner at the Guildhall, such was the urgency of the occasion. I think this difficulty could have been avoided by the company.
Now I come to the part of the Minister in this because, so far as I am concerned, the Minister is the central point in this matter. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen said we had a meeting, and he inaccurately said that he was surprised that we all turned up. He will remember he was asked whether he had any objection to my coming and he said he would be glad for me to come along.

Mr. Morley: It was a private conversation. The hon. Member came to me and said, "I hear you are meeting the Minister today with the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King). What time are you meeting him? "I told him what time we were meeting the Minister and he said, "Can I come along?" I replied, "Since the strike started in your district, I suppose you can." But then the hon. Member went out and gathered three or four other hon. Members and brought them along with him, and we held a meeting; a procedure to which I rather objected.

Mr. Smithers: I do not know why the hon. Member should object. There was general agreement as to what took place in the meeting, and general agreement as to the result of it having been satisfactory. The communique of the Minister which was put out afterwards and agreed by him has I think several very significant points in it. The last paragraph has not been read to the Committee. It is not in the text which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest read to the Committee. It reads:
The Members of Parliament present thanked Mr. Robens and said they hoped the men would accept this offer.
That was the offer of the Minister to which I will come in a moment. My point is that the Minister made an offer to these men and on the strength of that offer we six Members, from both sides of the Committee, advised the men to go back to work. That is why they went back to work. They were so advised.
I am concerned to see that the Minister has really implemented his undertaking. There were several features about this communique. First, there was the Minister's opening phrase—"… if the men would return to work." He was asking them to go back to work in return for what he was about to promise. Then he said that he would advise the Schedules Committee. He did not use the word, "consult," or any other phrase. The word is precise. He said that he would advise. I take it that advice takes the form of writing a letter or sending some personal message from the Minister to this committee.
I think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Poole was mistaken when he said that there is no Schedules Committee. As I understand the position, the

Schedules Committee consists partly of officials of the company and partly of members of the N.U.R. That was the committee to whom representations were to be made. The representations were that this Committee should receive representations from any of the men affected. It is clear that what the Minister was undertaking to do was to communicate with this Committee and ask them to see these men, not as representatives of their union but as individuals.
I recall the conversation clearly, and it is borne out by the text of the communique. I should like to ask the Minister to make it clear that he has in fact implemented his undertaking. Unfortunately, almost immediately, doubt was thrown upon it in the local Press. On 2nd June the "Hampshire Chronicle," printed the Minister's undertaking, and then said:
Upon this statement, the strikers agreed to resume work for a fortnight—and then to reconsider the position. But the matter was almost immediately complicated by the issue of a statement by Mr. Robens on the results of the conference which differed quite materially from that put out by the Members of Parliament.
I have never been able to find out that there ever was any such statement put out by the Minister. Does he confirm that there never was any such statement?

Mr. Robens: indicated assent.

Mr. Smithers:: The article continued:
Contact was made between the strike leaders and the two Southampton M.P.s, and Mr. Crouch, who took the matter up with the Ministry of Labour. The chief industrial adviser there interpreted the Minister's statement as meaning that the men's collective representation to the management would have to he made through N.U.R. channels.
That was something quite different to what we understood the Minister to undertake. It was not, of course, acceptable to the men.

Dr. King: I should not have interrupted on a point of argument, but I should like to inform the hon. Gentleman that it was made clear at the meeting, and in the original statement, that the men would have to make their application to the Schedules Committee on which were N.U.R. men.

Mr. Smithers: I agree. The men themselves had no objection whatever to going before that Committee with the N.U.R. members of the Committee there. There


is no objection to that. But this reference to N.U.R. channels very nearly wrecked the chance of these men returning to work, because they assumed that it simply meant that they would have to go through the regular N.U.R. channels and not direct to the Minister.

Mr. Robens: I do not know who wrote that. I cannot be responsible for what journalists write in newspapers.

Mr. Smithers: Can the Minister say whether his chief industrial adviser made any such statement? Does he deny the statement?

Mr. Robens: If the hon. Gentleman had told me that this was a statement made by an officer of my Department, I would have taken steps to find out whether the statement had been made. Then I should have been able to tell him, but obviously I am not able to say tonight.

Mr. Smithers: The point is that that was put in subsequently in correspondence, I cannot be sure of that, I think it was.

Mr. Robens: I had a letter from the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest, and I shall give the answer in my reply.

Mr. Smithers: I think we ought to know whether the Minister's official really said this or not, and I do not think that it is an unreasonable request. However, I pass from that point, as I do not wish to labour it.
The result of the last interview, when there was a further discussion of the matter, provided an assurance which was satisfactory to the strikers, and they went back to work. When they had gone back to work, the article continued:
A statement was made by the general manager of the bus company that no official intimation that the men would negotiate on the new schedules had yet been received by the management.
That, again gave a very bad impression, because it undermined the good effect of the Minister's undertaking, and I therefore made inquiries of the men at my depot, and they informed me that there was no change in the position and that they had been referred to the station inspectors. I got in touch with the general manager of the bus company, and, a week

after the Minister's original undertaking, asked him if he had received any advice from the Minister about the dispute. The general manager replied that he had not, and that all he had seen were the newspaper reports.
I therefore felt it right to put down a Parliamentary Question to the Minister to clear up the matter; I asked him quite precise Questions which he dealt with in the following way. To the Question as to the nature of the representations which he had made, he gave no answer, but merely said that officers of his Department had been in close touch. He did not say whether he had written letters or sent a personal message or what he had done, and I think we should have been told that. To the question on what date the representations took place, he merely replied that he had been in close touch on several occasions since the beginning of the recent strike, so that, really, that did not tell us very much either. Finally, as to the promise to give advice to the company, he did not say that any advice had been given to the Schedules Committee, but only that inquiries had been made, which does not seem to me to be a fulfilment of the Minister's promise both to the hon. Members concerned and the men who went back to work.
If I may sum up, what I want to put to the Minister is this. It appears to these men, and it certainly appears to me, that the Minister has not implemented his undertaking. We have confidence in the Minister. We think he is an honourable man, and I hope that he has implemented his undertaking. I hope that he will make clear to the Committee and to these men that he has, in fact, done so. If he were to give us some information as to the way in which he has implemented this undertaking, I think it would do a great deal of good in this local and I hope temporary trouble.
I come now to the other and longer term implication of the dispute, and I will simply say that the situation remains most unsatisfactory. Everybody in my constituency, both the public and the men, want to see the dispute settled. The men are not unreasonable in their outlook, and they are not by any means demanding everything that they can think of. I think that any settlement which any reasonable man outside this dispute would approve of would be approved by the men as well.
I therefore suggest to the Minister that the prime duty resting upon him in this case is to get these people together, to try to get the trade union elements in this dispute to have some sort of round table conference to see whether they can- not work out, as I believe with good will they can, a method whereby these men will have fair representation which will work well and which will satisfy them, and which, at the same time, will assure that this important public service is kept running.

Mr. Robens: I gather that the hon. Gentleman's solution is that this break- away union should now be recognised?

Mr. Smithers: Certainly not. I thought I had been quite clear in what I said. The right hon. Gentleman must have been talking to his hon. Friends on the Front Bench when I said it. I gave three solutions which seemed to me to be possible. I said it appeared possible that these men might be got back into the N.U.R., that the union might be recognised, or that there might be a home for them in the Transport and General Workers' Union. I also said that this House was not the proper place to decide that issue.

9.1 p.m.

Dr. King: This must be an historic occasion and the first in the history of this Parliament in which a strike has been considered with sympathy or even fairness by a group of hon. Members opposite. Whenever there is a strike, it is an indication of some deep malaise, and I only wish that Members of the Opposition had treated the great strikes of the miners and railwaymen in the past, fighting for a decent living, with half the sympathy they appear to have for strikers today. I very sincerely welcome what I hope is a change of heart on their part.
Southampton has a remarkable post-war record of industrial relations. That is a tribute to men and management alike. It is a tribute to give-and-take on both sides, and for the purpose of this debate it is worth noting that it is also really a tribute to the great and responsible leadership of the great trade unions which represent the bulk of the workers in that town.
Therefore, when we recently had a strike in Southampton and area, the people were genuinely distressed. It was

almost a unique strike. The natural resentment of those citizens who found themselves stranded on that first Sunday and of those who could not get to work, especially in the countryside, was tempered with very real sympathy for the busmen. The civic authorities attempted to mediate. I was quite genuinely impressed by the fact that Members of Parliament of both parties endeavoured to offer their good offices during the strike. Above all, the strike was conducted with restraint and dignity on the part of the busmen.
The Hants and Dorset Bus Company has recruited a fine body of drivers and conductors, and whatever one's views on the merits of the strike may be, a tribute is due to the orderly and restrained behaviour of the strikers. It was a strike with a real case on both sides, and I want to examine the issues involved.
The bus companies of Britain were the last section of British transport to receive the benefits of trade union organisation. Speaking before the Royal Transport Commission in 1929, leaders of the Transport and General Workers' Union and of the National Union of Railwaymen said:
The public omnibus service of this country, excluding London, is the only branch of the passenger service that will not accept machinery for dealing with wages and conditions and for the settlement of disputes.… We find amongst certain of the companies very strong opposition to the trade unions having anything to do with the regulation of conditions of these men, or even organising them Into a trades union.
Only powerful trade unions already existing could have undertaken the difficult task of organising the bus workers. The men were in small groups, with the managements hostile, and with conditions often approaching sweated labour. The Transport and General Workers' Union and the National Union of Railwaymen undertook the task.
Then the railway companies were given power, by a Conservative Government, to buy enough shares in the bus companies so as to acquire an interest in them of up to 49 per cent. They did not believe in free competition with road transport in those days. The unions agreed that in those companies in which the railways had bought substantial shares, the organisation of the workers should be by the National Union of Railwaymen. It was, perhaps too logically, assumed that the


interests of bus workers coincided more or less with those of railwaymen. They faced the same employers. The employers were banded together ever and ever more powerfully and the men thought their interests prompted the same kind of action.
Most decent employers in the country welcomed such arrangements. Others who did not were opposed to trade unionism in any case. The railways bought a 49 per cent. interest in the Hants and Dorset Bus Company. The rest were owned by Tillings who have no good record of a kindly attitude towards the organisation of the workers in their industry. The N.U.R. came down to Hampshire and built up the trade union organisation in the company and gave them an instrument by which they secured improved conditions and wages in common with bus drivers everywhere.
But with the growth of bus services throughout the country there have been signs of a desire by busmen to get together. At the moment the problem does not seem to affect the Transport and General Workers' Union but rather has emerged in the N.U.R. where there are two different kinds of work in the railways and the buses; and there is a desire on the part of some busmen to break away. Incidentally, I believe this desire is emphasised by the fact that we as a people still do not pay decent wages to busmen or railwaymen.
Most of the busmen are loyal to the N.U.R. It is true that year after year they have moved resolutions inside the N.U.R. to give them more autonomy. But they appreciate the gains secured by united action in improved rates of pay, conditions of work, and national scales and standards for bus workers. Most of all, they appreciate securing national and local bodies for dealing with wages and conditions of work on which the workers are represented.
In 1929, again before a Royal Commission on transport, trade unionists expressed the dream of those days that they might have some sort of Whitley Council for British transport where they might have some say in the control of their industry. Now they have secured such an instrument, and both sides of an industry which has such an instrument would not wish to see it either jeopardized

or thrown away. The cry of "Back to local agreements, to independent local negotiations "may be attractive in time of full employment when the workers are very powerful. It may be very dangerous indeed in a locality or a situation when the shift of power is the other way. Only the worst reactionaries in the country want a large number of little unions and they want them for the worst possible reasons.
During the past year Hants and Dorset busmen in large numbers have walked out of the N.U.R. and set up a separate busmens' union. Although this breakaway union is not strong nationally as yet, it has had tremendous success in the Hants and Dorset Company where over 90 per cent. of the men have joined it. It is this local strength which gives Hampshire men in this company a strong local case and a sense of justice in their demands. Their strength in one company make them inclined to overlook the national picture and the implications of their attitude. Moreover, when they left the old union they abandoned the old negotiating machinery and only a handful of men loyal to the N.U.R. were left to represent the workers' side in negotiations.
One of the matters negotiated is the schedules of duties. The duty of the management is to see that as little time as possible is lost by buses at each end of a journey, and to dovetail together the individual duties of men in the most economical way. The duty of the men's representatives is to see that the tightening up of schedules does not impose hardship or injustice on any of the men. These opposing interests are fought out at a schedules committee at national and local level on which both sides are represented.
As the bus workers' union has grown, it has naturally wished for the right to elect representatives of its own on the Schedules Committee to negotiate schedules rather than have those appointed by men belonging to the old parent union. On the other hand, the N.U.R. regard this company as being part of a great national system and they see grave dangers to the vital interests of hundreds of thousands of men they represent if the national instrument of negotiation were broken down in one corner.
Most trade unionists remember how, for what would appear locally were quite good reasons, many Notts. miners were led to break away from the National Mineworkers Union by a former Member of the House subsidised by our political opponents, with disastrous results for the Notts. miners and the miners of the country as a whole. This view is not only the view of the N.U.R. but also of the Trades Union Congress. It is also the view of the Southampton Trades Council, representing most trade unionists in the town, and it is the view, I believe, of British Transport. The new Busworkers' Union has not secured recognition either by the T.U.C. or by the management or by the vast majority of workers in British Transport.
It was against this background, with 90 per cent. of Hampshire bus workers having quitted their parent union and seeing no reason why, since the bulk of them are in the new union, the new union should not be recognised, and the N.U.R. and N.U.R. men responsible for hundreds of thousands of British Transport workers standing by national agreements and nationally agreed methods of consultation, that some weeks ago new schedules were drawn up. These make the service more economical, and cut down waiting time. No responsible trade union leader would object to an industry making itself more efficient, always provided no injustice was done to individuals.
The schedules were approved by the Schedules Committee on which N.U.R. men, as always, but not representatives of the new Busworkers' Union, were represented. There was some conflict of opinion as to the effect of the schedules on the men's time and wages, but I think everybody agrees that by rearranging duties and shortening waiting time the effect is to bring into normal working hours which had previously been counted as overtime and had been paid for at overtime rates. Men suffered a reduction in their wage packets for the same number of hours of duty. Nobody in these days of rising prices welcomes a reduction in the wage packet even if the case for increased efficiency is logically proved, and I understand there were bad cases of a drop in wages particularly in the Fareham depôt.
The mass of the men regarded the new schedules as having been imposed on

them. They had formed their own schedules group of experts—men who until they left the parent union had been serving as N.U.R. men on the Schedules Committee—but as far as I am aware they made no attempt to use the N.U.R. members on the Schedules Committee to press the grievances they had against the schedules. They felt strongly and as a matter of deep principle that they should be consulted as a body, and it was this feeling which later brought them out on strike. The management said they were prepared to receive individual objections to the schedules, but most of the new union members refused to make individual complaints as they wanted the right to make their complaints to their organisation.
Matters reached a head at the Winchester depôt. Here practically every man was a member of the new union, so that the N.U.R. man who negotiated the schedules for Winchester was not a Winchester man at all. It seems that the management wished to make a test case of Winchester, and whereas the schedules were deferred a week elsewhere they were put into force in Winchester on Sunday, 20th May. The men offered to work the old schedules, but refused to work the new schedules, and came out on strike. I am told the strike might have been confined to Winchester but for one or two serious incidents, the most serious being that, although the bus workers from other depôts had decided that they would not blackleg the Winchester men by going into Winchester, one of these men, picketing in the traditionally accepted way, was interfered with by a Hampshire policeman. News of incidents like this flashed back to the various depôts, and that Sunday the men came out on strike almost all over the area, stranding thousands of Sunday passengers.
The strike began as a strike against the new schedules, but all the background has made it clear that whether the men wished it or not, this was a strike for the recognition of the breakaway union. I am certain that the hulk of the men were genuine in their declarations that they did not mean this as a strike for recognition of the union, although their leader must have realised from the start, and certainly all must have realised before it ended, that griev-


ances against the schedules had become involved in the question of recognition.
Indeed, on Monday, 21st May, the Southampton strikers placed as number one of their grievances:
Lack of facilities for contact with management on a collective representation basis… no individual allowed to act as spokesman for the staff except N.U.R. members who were not acceptable to staff as a whole.
This demand was very soon dropped, but it crossed every effort we made in the next few days to secure an end to the strike. My hon. Friend the Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley) and myself took an offer to the management on the third day that the men would return to work if the management would meet elected representatives of the strikers. The management took the view that this meant recognising the new union and they reaffirmed that men could make individual, but not collective, representation against the schedules.
A similar result occurred when the Mayor of Southampton made a similar effort to intervene. At the end of the week we conveyed to the Minister of Labour the men's repeatedly affirmed statement that they would return if he would undertake to investigate, and in an interview on Monday, 28th May, he said he would urge the schedules committee to receive not only individual representation but also a group of individuals presenting not only their own grievances but also those of their fellow workers. These men would be as employees and not as representatives of the Busworkers' Union.
Despite the confusion which later arose, the men accepted this. We interpreted it to them the next morning in the Lobby of the House of Commons. They accepted it, but it is true that they did so under protest. They had not secured recognition of their new union and they had not secured appointments from the new union to the schedules committee. They had still to take their grievance to the officially elected committee on which were N.U.R. members. However, they could make some sort of collective representation as busmen against any wrongs in the schedules.
If the strike was not a strike for recognition of the N.B.U., I think the matter might now be said to have ended, provided there is good will on both sides.

But the deep issue remains. I believe the great unions concerned will have to look at this question—this question put by the 'busmen; but I think the place to fight out the 'busmen's problems is by 'busmen fighting them inside the unions to which they belong.
The immediate task is to convince the Hampshire and Dorset busmen that their interests are bound up with those of their fellow busmen who do not share their views on breaking away from big unions, and that a local majority, no matter how big or how universal, must be weighed against the national majority and the views of busmen elsewhere in the country. Even the strike itself reveals the weakness of a small union—the danger of embarking on strike action without realising its implications and its effects on the community, without reserves for strike pay, and, above all, the danger of splitting the workers into factions, weakening each other in a struggle where unity is strength and disunity is a gift to the enemies of trade unionism.
I understand that I have spoken a little too long. May I make one plea to both sides? I would ask that they look at this question of the schedule grievances in a spirit of goodwill on both sides. I am informed—I hope I am wrong—that Mr. Rogers, one of the strike leaders, has been demoted because of his activities in the strike. I hope that is not true or, if it is true, that the management will put the matter right. I hope that the men, on going back to work, will look at the matter in a reasonable way and that there will be neither flaunting of authority on the one hand or victimisation or unwillingness to meet the men on the other hand. There I would end. I would say that the biggest contribution to good feeling will be a willingness by the management to give real consideration to the impact of the schedules on individual cases of the kind which have been quoted in this debate, for it means real injustice and real hardship to a number of men.

9.20 p.m.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: I think that the Committee can congratulate itself that, taking the debate as a whole, the approach has been to a serious difficulty of workers' representation and not a search either to make political or union points. The


obvious difficulty which I have mentioned has been pointed out most emphatically in the speeches of the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley) and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King).
I think that anyone, whatever his union background, who has heard these hon. Members expressing the difficulty would share my regret that Mr. Figgins thought it necessary to make an attack upon them for what they had done. I want to make my position perfectly clear, and I think I should get a great deal of support for it, if hon. Members would think out the question dispassionately and objectively. In the ordinary way what should be the representation of any grade or section of workers is a matter for the ordinary machinery that exists.
I think that an exception to that rule must be made when the following three conditions co-exist. First, when there is grave dissatisfaction in a grade or section of workers with its present representation; second, when those workers affected have exhausted their claims and rights in existing union machinery without success; and, third, when there is a clear likelihood of further trouble and injustice to the workers. If these three conditions co-exist then I feel that we, as Members of Parliament, would not be doing our duty were we not to bring up the existing situation for discussion in the House and consideration of ministerial responsibility regarding it.
I hope that hon. Members will, at any rate, consider that point of view, because it is our existing difficulty. This is only one example which I am not going into further in detail, but I want it to illustrate the difficulty. Concerning the three points I have put forward, I do not think that anyone can deny, having heard the speech of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, that this is a case where there is grave dissatisfaction in a section of workers with its present representation. No one who heard that speech can deny that, and that must be the indisputable point from which we start.
On my second point, I am not going into details and will simply give my own view. I have read all the resolutions which the annual bus workers' conference have passed year after year, from 1945 to 1951, inclusive. I have tried to read them fairly. I do not want to attack the N.U.R.

or to make enemies of anyone outside this Committee. Although we are strong political opponents here, we do not make enemies on the representations made inside the House. I do not want to do that, but I find that there we have representatives of a section of the union expressing, year after year, dissatisfaction in the union and failing substantially to get their grievances dealt with. Therefore, this is the result of a feeling that has been growing over the whole period since the war.
It is very difficult, when two great unions divide up the territory of human souls, to maintain absolute loyalty from the smaller sections, who consider that they are outside the main stream and interest of the work of the union. That is the problem, and it is very difficult. Some of the men were told they could not transfer to the Transport and General Workers' Union as some of them would have liked to do because an agreement had been made. In those circumstances it is difficult to write such men off as a scab or breakaway union. The question has to be considered further.

Mr. D. Jones: Mr. D. Jones rose—

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I should like to give way, but we have agreed to split the last part of the debate into two periods of 20 minutes, and I hope, therefore, that I shall not be detained.

Mr. Jones: I just want to make one point. The new breakaway union has not only recruited its members from the N.U.R., but it tried to wean the workers from the Transport and General Workers' Union, so that the point of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not valid.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That did not apply in the Hants and Dorset Company, and the difficulty in Scunthorpe was that the members of the Transport and General Workers' Union wanted to remain members of it, and it was only because they were transferred from the Transport and General Workers' Union to the National Union of Railwaymen that they became dissatisfied and entered the breakaway union.

Mr. Jones: indicated dissent.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Member may not agree, but it is bound to be a matter of opinion. I can only say that the view I have given is very widely held


as being the explanation of the Scunthorpe manifestation.
I want to keep to the three points which I was making. Having, in their view, been unable to get what they wanted, these bus men decided to form a new union. Explanations of that have been given from both sides of the Committee. I am not going to re-hash the matter, but they made application to the National Council of the Omnibus Industry and were refused. What is the position to be there? Article 6 is the kernel of the whole business, and it lays down that at least half of the membership in the industry must be in the union. The membership here, put at its lowest by one hon. Member, is 5,000, and there are only about 8,000 members who are bus workers in the N.U.R. This union has only been going since last November.
That is the first difficulty we meet. We have a constitution, and we must try to get proper representation on both sides. The test is "membership in the industry." They are excluded there. With regard to the company, of course they took the same view. That was the position, that the application for consideration of their position, from both the National Council and the local company, was refused.
That is the background in which this trouble started. I want to take an example, and I am sure that the Minister will remember it well, of the second occasion when he refused to refer the matter as a dispute under Order No. 1305. I am not troubling with the first one, because it involves a particular person, and I do not want to discuss particular persons' positions across the Floor. The second one, which was put to the right hon. Gentleman on 24th January and again on 8th February in the House, was that the staff employed by the Hants and Dorset Company at the Lymington depôt claimed the right to consultation with local companies' superintendents on
matters of local interest without the obligations of belonging to a particular union.
That was the matter which was in dispute.
The right hon. Gentleman then said that that was not really in order, and he refused to refer it as a matter coming under Order No. 1305. I believe that Order No. 1305 has outlived its useful-

ness and that the time is coming when the sanction by threat of imprisonment or fine must go. We have not got to that stage at the moment. If we have any hope—I believe all of us have a great deal of hope—that compulsory arbitration with a sanction of imprisonment behind it is to be replaced by acceptance of voluntary arbitration, how can we expect it, if the Minister is not going to refer to arbitration a claim for joint consultation without the obligation of belonging to a particular union? It is a most serious matter.
The next application which was made to the right hon. Gentleman was on 14th April and was refused on 27th April as not coming within Order No. 1305. According to the "National Railway Review" the dispute started on 20th May, and that publication has never hesitated to call it a "dispute" even before the strike action. Order No. 1305 refers to
disputes in being or anticipated.
The third application for reference was made within six weeks of the strike and, if the "National Railway Review" is right, within just over a month of the dispute arising. In this case these two serious points have arisen before the action of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to this dispute arose and that arose on the development of the trouble with regard to the schedules.
This has been an "Alice Through the Looking Glass" debate. The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) has been taunting me and my hon. Friends for supporting workmen in asking for more overtime and has been stalwartly saying that employers must do everything they can to increase efficiency even if it means a lower pay packet. Well, the hon. Gentleman said it and it is a good thing that views should be expressed which are somewhat out of line with those which I am sure he had been expressing for the greater part of his long and distinguished career in trade unionism.
But my point is that whether the hon. Member for The Hartlepools is right in saying that the bus workers in the Hants and Dorset Company are unreasonable men or whether the men are right in saying that they have suffered hardship as a result of, in effect, losing their 7s. 6d. increase and in some cases by losing 12s. 6d., there is no doubt, as the two


hon. Members for Southampton made it clear, that in this matter there is an issue and a difference of opinion and something which is worthy of inquiry.
The Minister of Labour saw the Members of Parliament on 29th May. As has been made quite clear, there is, fortunately, no doubt that he said he would advise the Schedules Committee of the Hants and Dorset Bus Company to receive representatives from any of the men affected. That is important. It is clear from what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. P. Smithers), in what hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree was a most moderate, objective and closely-reasoned speech, that a week after that statement was made by the Minister the manager of the bus company told him that the company had received no advice. It is also quite correct that, in replying to a question as long afterwards as 15th June, the right hon. Gentleman simply said that his people had made inquiries.
That is the other point. What is the advice that he has given? What has he done to ensure that the management has been advised that any of the men—be it in groups of one, two, three, four or five or whatever it is—should see the Schedules Committee? The right hon. Gentleman's qualification was not really helpful. In answer to a Question he referred to "the Schedules Committee or the N.U.R. representatives." It is very natural that the N.U.R. representatives should be unhelpful. For example, the Southampton No. 5 Branch said, "We will only deal with members of the N.U.R. and not deal with other people." So it is the Schedules Committee or nothing. What we want to know—this will be one of the matters which will determine our action tonight—is what has been done—

Mr. Monslow: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any evidence to substantiate the statement that he is now making about Southampton No. 5 Branch?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Yes. It is quite clear. I did not want to read it in full because of the time, but I summarised it quite fairly in stating that they said they were only available for members of the National Union of Railwaymen.
There is no question about that. My right hon. Friend has just handed me the original. It says:
I wish to advise you that the services of the National Union of Railwaymen are available only to members of this Union or an affiliated Union.
That was about the schedule. I think the hon. Member will agree that I put it rightly.
That is the position with regard to the immediate dispute. Of course, it goes further than that. We have, first of all, the immediate dispute, which I have mentioned. We have the case of the N.U.P.E. Nobody can say the N.U.P.E. are a breakaway union. They are a union affiliated to the T.U.C. with a membership of 150,000. They have 4,000 electricians. Everyone knows the dignified but intensely bitter language of the executive of the N.U.P.E. because their men were not allowed representation in view of the dispute with the E.T.U. We have the position at Scunthorpe which I have mentioned generally. We have the counter position near Stroud.
In these circumstances, I say that the right hon. Gentleman should not refuse an inquiry. He asked what he should do. He must do two things. He must, first of all, give that advice, if he has not given it already, that they will see these men individually. Secondly, he must use the powers, which he undoubtedly has, to have an inquiry into a situation which, if it is allowed to fester, will damage not only individuals but this great trade union movement— let us forget for a moment about trying to manœuvre for position—which is one of the bulwarks upon which the prosperity of our country will depend. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do those two things, and I say that our action will depend on the answer we get.

9.43 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Robens): I cannot help but feel that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) was very uncomfortable in the case he was making, because he was forced into the position of pleading for the breakaway union and into the position of bringing anarchy into the trade union movement. I tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if he were to go to the most responsible employers' associations they would not share his view that


it was a wise thing to encourage breakaway organisations within the trade union movement.
This debate has been distinguished by two speeches from the back benches, one from the hon. and gallant Gentleman who opened it, the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) and the other from my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones). They were two important speeches. One was delivered with great authority, with great power and with great knowledge. That was from my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools. The other was delivered with great hestitancy. I have never seen the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest to less advantage than I have seen him tonight.
The reason is not far to seek. The hon. Member for The Hartlepools knew what he was talking about. The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest had to rely upon being briefed by Mr. Baker the secretary of this breakaway union, who has been assisted by a Central Office official of the Conservative Party. They have been sitting together not 100 miles from where I am standing.
I want to give a warning to the members of this breakaway union. It is this. The Conservative Party are the traditional enemy of the workers of this country. [Interruption.] The Conservative Party are the traditional enemy of the workers —[HON. MEMBERS: "Is that the Labour Party's official line?"]—and when an official of a breakaway union has to tie up with the Conservative Party, the workers are in for a very bad time if ever that party should become the Government of the country.
They should be well warned, on the evidence of my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools, as to the activities of Mr. Baker. They should be well warned that what they are doing does not improve the strength and organisation of the trade union movement or enable the trade union movement to raise the standards of the workers, but will aid the Conservative Party in their well-avowed and well-known intention of trying to split the trade union movement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The very well publicised and well-known objective of the Conservative Party is to try to split the trade union movement, because they know

full well the power of the trade union movement in relation to a Labour Government.
This was a discussion on a particular strike, and I want for a moment to say something—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the Prime Minister's face?

Mr. Robens: The hon. Member ought to see the face of the Leader of the Opposition from time to time; he would not like that.
I want to make quite clear the position with regard to this dispute. There is a national agreement covering bus workers, and on the basis of that national agreement there is a local agreement covering the Hants and Dorset Company. One of the parties to that agreement is, of course, the National Union of Railwaymen, of which the men in question were members until Mr. Baker's double activities weaned them away from the N.U.R. The wage standards and all their conditions have been negotiated by the N.U.R. and are contained in that agreement. That agreement is not very old. It was concluded in February, 1948, and is based on the national agreement. There is in those two agreements a well ordered method of procedure between employers and employed, which employers also would not wish to see broken.
All the difficulties that have arisen in connection with the bus company have arisen by reason of the formation of the National Bus Workers' Association. I will not go into detail because of the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools. I hope that the National Union of Railwaymen will reprint that speech and will issue it to every employee of the Hants and Dorset Company so that they shall know the facts of the situation. I believe that when they know those facts they will accept some good advice, which would be to get back into their union.
Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that he disagrees with breakaway unions, there are three conditions upon which he would, perhaps, support a breakaway union. On his first point I submit to him that if there is dissatisfaction among a section of workers


with their representatives, the rule book of the National Union of Railwaymen provides, as he will find, that members within that union have all the democratic power they need to make such arrangements as they want to ensure that they get adequate representation.
It is not any use hon. Members shaking their heads in disagreement; it is a fact. The trade union movement is a much more democratic organisation than the Conservative Party organisation, which has its policy laid down for it by a gentleman called The Leader." [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Mr. Horner?"] If hon. Members are asking about Mr. Arthur Horner's health I have not seen him for some time, and the question does not mean anything to me.
I come to my position in relation to this matter. I met six Members of Parliament in my room in this House to discuss the matter and I made it clear then, as I make it clear now, that while I hold the position of Minister of Labour I will do nothing at any time to give any sort of recognition to a breakaway union under any circumstances. I will do nothing at any time that will weaken the strength of the organised trade union movement that has been built up over 100 years of struggle, and I do not propose to undermine the position they have built up.
In all these matters I am ready to do what I can to compose differences and prevent industrial disputes—[Interruption.] It is not any use hon. Members jeering. If, instead of dining or spending their time otherwise than in the House they had been here, they would have heard tributes paid to me by their hon. Friends for the good will I exercise in these matters. I always do what I can. On this occasion I did say that the men would be able to approach the schedule committees as individuals.

Mr. P. Smithers: The right hon. Gentleman did not say "committees." he said "the schedule committee."

Mr. Robens: I certainly said that they could approach the schedule committees, because there are committees at the different depots, not one schedule committee for the whole company. I said that the men could approach the schedule committees as individuals.

Mr. Smithers: indicated dissent.

Mr. Robens: It is no use the hon. Member shaking his head. My recollection of the conversation is as good as his.

Mr. Smithers: It was not a conversation but a document which he agreed.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Read it out.

Mr. Robens: If hon. Members opposite want to take up time, that is ail right. Secondly, I said it did not matter very much if more than one person approached the schedule committees and that it could be groups of one, two, or three. I have checked up with the management on that and I am informed [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] It is no use asking for order at this time of night, they are enjoying it. I have been assured by the N.U.R.— and these schedule committees are composed of N.U.R. members—that there will be no difficulty about more than one individual approaching a schedule committee to cover the case of men working on related routes, providing that the approach is not made in any way which would involve recognition of the N.B.A. as a negotiating body. There will not be peace in this industry whilst there is a breakaway union.
It has been suggested that after I had these discussions with the Members of Parliament I took no action. The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest wrote to me about this and I wrote him a letter, which I will read because I was asked to do so earlier in the debate. I wrote:
I have your letter about the Hants and Dorset bus strike. In order that the position shall he made perfectly clear, my officers have again been in touch with the Management of the Company and with the N.U.R.
This is dated 6th June:
It is confirmed by the N.U.R. that individuals may approach the existing Schedules Committees or N.U.R. representatives with a view to their raising with the Management any question relating to the Schedules, and it is confirmed by the Company that individuals may also make representations direct to the Depot Superintendents or Inspectors.
In view of this confirmation of the position, I think you will agree that adequate machinery is available to deal with any legitimate point of grievance which individual workers may desire to raise.
I should have thought that was perfectly clear, and that if hon. Gentlemen


really wanted to have peace in this industry they would have been joining with us and condemning breakaway unions. There never can be peace in industry if agreements are broken without notice; or if, when agreements are made, and small sections of a trade union are unable to get their own way for one reason or another, they set up splinter unions, breakaway unions, and then try to dominate the situation in a particular area.
All the experience in the trade union movement has proved that that kind of thing can never succeed. This breakaway union my go on with its activities for some time, but it will finally fail. During that period it will be just like the old Spencer's Union in the N.U.M. which caused a great deal of upset and unrest in the industry. The same thing will happen in the bus industry. If hon. Members opposite want industrial strife in the in

dustry let them go on encouraging breakaway unions and encouraging the activities of men who play the double game like Mr. Baker, as shown in the evidence of my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools.

They will never get me as Minister of Labour to give one iota of assistance to breakaway unions. I will always endeavour to be a conciliatory party in composing differences, but the trade union movement in this country will not stand for breakaway unions, nor will His Majesty's Government.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That Item Class V, Vote 7, Ministry of Labour and National Service, be reduced by £5."

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 178: Noes, 193.

Division No. 165.]
AYES

 [10.0 p.m.



Altken, W. T.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Mckie, J. H. (Galloway)


Arbuthnot, John
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Maclay, Hon. John


Ashton, H (Chelmsford)
Gage, C. H.
Maclean, Fitzroy


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Galbraith, Cmdr T. D. (Pollock)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Astor, Hon. M. L
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Baxter, A. B
Gammans, L. D.
Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)


Bell, R. M.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Maitland, Cmdr. J. W.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Bonnett, William (Woodside)
Grimond, J.
Marples, A. E


Birch, Nigel
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)


Black, C. W.
Grimston, Robert (Westbury)
Maude, Angus (Ealing, S)


Bossom, A. C
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Mellor, Sir John


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Maclesfield)
Molson, A. H. E.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Monckton, Sir Walter


Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.
Hay, John
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Brame, B. R.
Heald, Lionel
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencesier)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G- (Bristol, N.W)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hirst, Geoffrey
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hollis, M. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Buchan-Hepburn, P G T.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.
Orr-Ewmg, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Bullock, Capt. M
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Butcher, H. W.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Perkins, W R. D.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N)
Peto, Brig C H M.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinslead)
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Pickthorn K.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth,W.)
Hutchingson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Colegate, A.
Hylton-Foster, H B.
Raikes, H. V.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Jennings, R.
Redmayne, M.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (llford, S)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Renton, D. L. M.


Cranborne, Viscount
Kerr, H W. (Cambridge)
Robertson, Sir David (Caithness)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W H.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lambert Hon G.
Robson-Brown, W.


Crouch, R. F.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Crowder, Capt John (Finchley)
Leather, E. H. C
Roper, Sir Harold


Cundiff, F. W.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Cuthbert, W. N
Lennox-Boyd, A. T
Russell, R. S.


de Chair, Somerset
Lindsay, Martin
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Deedes, W F
Linstead, H. N.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Digby. S Wingfielo
Llewellyn, D.
Sandys, fit. Hon. D.


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E)
Scott, Donald


Donner, P. W.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col J. C.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Low, A. R. W.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W E.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Erroll, F. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Fisher, Nigel
MoCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Spearman, A. C M.


Fletcher, Walter (Bury)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Foster, John
McKibbin, A.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)




Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)
Wheatley, Maj. M. J. (Poole)


Storey, S.
Touche, G. C.
Williams, Charles (Torquay)


Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Turner, H. F. L
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Turton, R. H.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Studholme, H. G.
Vane, W. M. F.
Wills, G.


Summers, G. S.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Sutcliffe, H.
Vosper, D. F.
Wood, Hon. R.


Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)



Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Teeling, W.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Mr. Drewe and


Thomas, J. P, L. (Hereford)
Watkinson, H.
Brigadier Mackeson


Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Gilzean, A.
Nally, W.


Albu, A. H.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Padley, W. E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Grey, C. F.
Pannell, T. C.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Pargiter, G. A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Parker, J.


Awbery, S. S
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Paton, J.


Ayles, W. H.
Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)
Popplewell, E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Porter, G.


Baird, J.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Balfour, A.
Hail, John (Gateshead, W.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Hamilton, W. W.
Proctor, W. T.


Bartley, P.
Hannan, W.
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Benn, Wedgwood
Hardy, E. A.
Rankin, J.


Benson, G.
Hargreaves, A.
Rees, Mrs. D.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hastings, S.
Reeves, J.


Blyton, W. R.
Hayman, F. H.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Bowden, H. W.
Herbison Miss. M.
Richards, R.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hobson, C. R.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Holman P.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Brooks T. J. (Normanton)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Houghton, D.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Ross, William


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Royle, C.


Burke, W. A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hynd, J. B (Attercliffe)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Callaghan, L. J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Champion, A. J.
Janner, B.
Simmons, C. J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jay, D. P. T.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cocks, F. S.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Snow, J. W.


Coldrick, W.
Jenkins, R. H.
Sorensen, R. W


Cook, T. F.
Johnston Douglas (Paisley)
Steele, T.


Cooper, John (Deptford)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Keenan. W.
Sylvester, G. O.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Kenyon, C.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Crossman, R. H. S.
King, Dr. H. M.
Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Daines, P.
Kinley, J.
Thomas, Iowerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Lever, Leslie (Arthurick)
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Longden, Fred (Small Heath)
Vernon, W. F.


Davies, Harold (Leak)
MacColl, J. E.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Mclnnes, J.
Wallace, H. W.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mack, J. D.
Watkins, T. E.


Deer, G.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Delargy, H. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Diamond, J.
Mainwaring, W. H.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Donnelly, D.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J. (W. Bromwich)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Wilkins, W A.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Messer, F.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Middleton, Mrs. L
Willey, Ootavius (Cleveland)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mitchison. G R.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Ewart, R.
Moeran, E. W
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)


Fernybough, E.
Monslow, W.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Field, Capt. W. J.
Moody, A. S.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightsida)


Fletcher, Erie (Islington, E.)
Morley, R.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Foot, M. M.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W)
Yates, V. F.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mort, D. L.
Younger, Rt. Hon K.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Moyle, A.



Gibson, C. W.
Mulley, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Sparks.

Original Question again proposed.

It being after Ten o'Clock, and objection being taken to further proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — PLASTERBOARD (PRICES)

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 11th May, 1951, entitled the Plasterboard (Prices) (No. 1) Order, 1951 (S.1. 1951, No. 864), a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th May, be annulled.
I would venture to suggest that it may be for the convenience of the House if the two other Prayers which are on the Order Paper, dealing with Building Plasters and Gypsum Rock, might be discussed together.

Mr. Speaker: That seems to me to be most convenient, as I gather that they all cover, more or less, the same subject.

Mr. Pickthorn: Yes; thank you, Sir.
I may begin, perhaps, with a small point, so that those hon. Members who have informed themselves on this matter through the newspapers and other similar ways may be brought quite up-to-date; that is to say, there has been within the last few days quite recently, a decision that the price of plasterboard shall be very slightly raised above what it was when these Prayers were put down. That rise in price does not improve the effective price for plasterboard, which is the material principally concerned. The rise in paper has been so much that the recent rise—this last penny—leaves plasterboard really a farthing a square yard or foot, whatever it is, worse off than it was before, so it makes very little difference there.
On the other point, that is, the point of discrimination, the giving of different prices for plasterboard as between one group of producers and other producers, on that side of the matter—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will bear me out it is not in the least affected by this additional rise. But since the additional rise might have been adduced in argument later, I thought it perhaps wise

to clear that out of the way first. Perhaps I may add this, in that connection, that the Order was made on 11th May to come into effect on 21st, and it really is a bit of a comment on the claims made for control, planning, and price fixing, and all that, that early in June the Minister of Works had to promise another penny to meet what ought to have been a perfectly calculable rise in the cost of paper which is one of the raw materials of this production, and he had, of course, been pressed about that before.
But, as I say, the importance of this matter is simply that on the straight price the manufacturers are left now still about a farthing worse off than they would have been if the penny had not been put on, and on the differential, that remains what it was. That brings me to the three questions which I will endeavour to keep as short and as simple as I can. I think, again, the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that there are three questions into which this matter can be divided. First of all, ought there to be control and fixing of prices in this matter? I propose to say almost nothing about that, and I hope the debate will not mainly turn upon it.
Secondly, and obviously of the greatest immediate practical importance to the persons concerned, is the price as now fixed for the British Plasterboard Group the right price, or is it too low? I ask the House to believe that I do not think that the most important part of the debate either. The third question into which the general question can be divided is the one which seems to me much the most important and on which it seems to me plain that these Orders ought to be prayed against. That is the question whether the power of price fixing ought to be used to fix a lower price for one producer of something or other, whatever it may be, than for other producers of the same product.
It may be that in the course of my argument I shall spend more time on the second point, but I will return to the third point in the end, which is the one which seems to me to be the most important. It perhaps needs less arguing than the others because it is obvious on the face of it, whether one takes the view that discrimination is good or bad, that there is discrimination; and I should have


thought everyone would agree it is obvious there ought to be a presumption against discrimination in these matters, a presumption which it is the duty of the Minister to rebut: though I should have thought it irrebuttable.
On the first point—ought there to be control?—I think the Minister is under some duty to tell the House why there ought to be control, and this particular control under these statutes. I am not trying to argue that this is ultra vires or anything of that sort, but anybody who reads the two statutes—the Supplies and Services Acts of 1945 and 1947—will, I think, find it difficult to bring this particular product under any of the specific purposes for which the Executive was given this power. I think it can only be done by a very generalised argument and I think there is a presumption there which really ought to be rebutted before this Order becomes permanent. That is on the first point.
The second point is: Is this price as now fixed, whether or not there ought to be any fixing, sufficient? On this I would like if I may to begin with a general kind of confession of faith in this matter. I am not going to try—[Interruption.] I do not know if the hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) wants to say something, but if he does not want to say something he would meet his wishes and mine by not speaking. It is not the choice of the industry nor is it in the main the choice of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House that Government controls and directions and especially price fixing, form now so large a part of the factors to be taken into account by those managing production. For good or for bad that is so. It is not their fault.
But once that is the situation, Members of Parliament must have a right and indeed a duty on occasion to espouse, so to speak, the case of the producers concerned and to advocate their view of what the price ought to be, or at least to advocate their argument against the price as fixed. It must be right for us to do that upon occasion, and if I am not going to do that now at all elaborately that is partly from a sense of incompetence; it is partly to save time; and it is mainly because I think my third point decisive anyway, and it is not in the least because I, and I think I may

be bold enough to say anybody on this side of the House, doubts that when the Government has to fix a price we can properly argue that that price is not enough. We are entirely in our rights so to argue, either in the interests of the persons managing the industry concerned or, for that matter, and the two things are not separable, in the interests of those persons employed in the industry; and it happens that this group employs a considerable number of men in my constituency.
I do not want to argue whether or not these are the right prices at any length or with any elaboration. I only want to indicate what seem to me some of the questions on that point which ought to be fully understood and upon which there ought to be quite clear and quite unanswerable decisions before it can be decided these Orders ought to stand.
One small point is, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not use the argument which has been used in some of the party organs about bonus shares. What I am assured is that the issued capital, including any bonus shares issued, amount to £3 million, that the actual cash and cash equivalent—and I will define my use of that word in a minute—amount to about £9 million, that the replacement value of the physical capital is about £14 million; and that of these two last figures, £9 million and £14 million, in each case rather more than two-thirds of the capital is applicable to the products which we are now discussing; and again I think the right hon. Gentleman will probably agree that my figures, at any rate I hope they are. are right.
The Ministry alleges that its price is fixed to produce 15 per cent. on capital, but not on capital in the sense in which I have just used it. When I said "cash equivalent" just now, by that I meant that where assets have been bought with shares, they are taking the value of those shares at the cash for which they could have been sold on the Stock Exchange on that date. That is the price which has often been used by the Government in nationalisation and other Measures, and I do not think there can be any complaint of that.
But the Ministry definition of capital for this purpose is quite different. Their 15 per cent. is 15 per cent. gross, including


tax, including what they call "some replacement"—I do not know what proportion of necessary replacements they may mean by "some"—and upon capital in this sense: in the sense of the original cash cost of the physical assets, the original cash cost not necessarily or even mostly to the present firm but to the people who originally bought it—upon that original cost minus any writing down that has been done since.
The British Plasterboard Group argue —and I do not go bail for this, though I am reasonably sure it is right; it has been most carefully done by independent accountants, and so on—that so far from the price fixed giving them 15 per cent. of their capital in the sense which I indicated, it gives them only 2.2 per cent. Of this £3 million of issued capital for which the British Plasterboard Group have the responsibility to provide adequate remuneration by way of dividends, the last £1 million was subscribed by the public in July, 1946, to meet the Ministry of Works desire that there should be expansion, on the authority of the Treasury advised by the Capital Issues Committee, at a price of 30s. which was the minimum price recommended by the Capital Issues Committee and the Treasury.
Incidentally, that minimum price, I think, certainly validates, if there should be any argument, my use of the expression — cash equivalent "three or four minutes ago. This £1 million was sought by the Group on Government advice, with Government authority, on terms suggested by the Government, was got from the public —13,000 of them, mostly existing shareholders—and although transfers to reserves have been small, those shareholders have been paid only a little over 4 per cent. since the raising of that money.
I do not want fully to argue this part 'of the case. I say that that case, if it is anything like fair—and I have taken what trouble I could to make sure that it is fair—does make it look very unlikely that this price is the right price. It makes it very difficult to see how this Group, for instance, could be expected to raise new money in the future. For example, they have, I believe, a project for providing anhydride, and one of the things which people not excessively engaged in party politics have been saying lately is that one, at least, of the reasons for shortage of raw materials has been price

fixing. Here is a case. Everybody wants sulphur; therefore, they want anhydride. That is the second point of the argument, that the price is not sufficient to enable these people to give due remuneration to their shareholders and to maintain and renew their physical capital as it should be maintained and renewed. I hope that I have put those first two points fairly.
Now I will put the third point very shortly, although, as I have already said twice, I think it much the most important. That is to say, even admitting for the sake of argument that there ought to be controls of the prices of this product, admitting for the sake of argument that the price fixed for these three Instruments are exactly the right prices, admitting those things merely for the sake of argument, yet it seems to me that there is a very strong presumption—indeed, I should have thought an irrebuttable presumption— against the propriety of using delegated legislation to say to two producers of what are almost indistinguishable products that they may charge different maximum prices for those products. I believe the British Plasterboard Group think that their product is slightly superior to anybody else's. That is not an unusual kind of prejudice. I do not think that either their competitors or any impartial user suggests that the products of their competitors are very much the better. I think we may take the products for our purposes as being equivalent.
My main argument is that to use delegated legislation for two effectively equivalent products, in order to allow one producer to charge a maximum less than you allow another producer to charge, was not in the intention of either of the Statutes and was not contemplated by Parliament at the time of their passing; is contrary to all usage and to every day equity and ought to be reversed. That seems to me really to be the strong case, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not retire behind the Palmer Committee, because it seems to me that the Palmer Committee can advise on the prices really only upon the principles that have been adopted in the fixing inside this industry since it started upon a voluntary basis—and it is not admitted that those principles are necessarily the right ones.
I do not think that the Palmer Committee really provides him with an argument against my second point, but I am quite certain that the Palmer Committee


does not provide any kind of shield against my third point—that this discrimination point is not a matter which is any business for the Palmer Committee to decide or to report upon. Nor can it be argued that by fixing discriminatory prices, even if that were admitted ever to be right, we are doing something to avoid monopoly; indeed, I think quite the contrary. We are making monopoly more likely.
The Government themselves quite recently were still thinking that the customer would always go to whoever produced the stuff cheaper, and if that were to happen we might well see the smaller concerns pushed out of business or at least pressed very hard. There is ample productive capacity in this industry. There have been two small concerns pushed out of business fairly recently, and that argument in favour of discrimination therefore—that this is the only possible alternative to monopoly—will not bite. I think I have made plain what seem to me to be the three reasons why these Orders should not remain valid, and I hope I have made plain why I think the third the most important of the three.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I beg to second the Motion.
My main objection to these three Statutory Instruments is that they are designed to impose maximum prices for gypsum, plaster and plaster board produced by one group of companies—namely, the British Plasterboard Group—while other competitive companies are left free from controls. I hasten to say that I have no financial interest and no other interest in the British Plaster Board Company and that the only reason my hon. Friends and I have raised this matter tonight is because we think the procedure which has been adopted by the Government is unfair, is un-British and is a most improper use of the powers of delegated legislation.
I do not want to go into technical details this evening, but I understand that the Government's action has arisen because of the breakdown of a voluntary —I repeat, voluntary— agreement by which producers undertook not to increase prices without the Minister's consent. In recent months there have been discussions between the Plasterboard Group and the

Government about the rising costs of coal, fuel, transport, paper and so on. Every manufacturer in this country has been faced with rising prices and it is only reasonable that the Plasterboard Group should discuss these matters with the Government.
The talks between the Government and the Group ended in a deadlock and the Group decided that they could only withdraw from the voluntary agreement. But producers other than the Plasterboard Group have been permitted by the Government to incease their selling prices by a higher margin than the maximum which is laid down in these orders as the margin permitted to the Plasterboard Group, on, the ground that their manufacturing costs were higher than those of the Plasterboard Group. Therefore, we find that the most efficient producers of plasterboards are penalised because they are the most efficient, and the Government decide to introduce an order giving them a lower selling price than any of their competitors.
Another point I should like to emphasise is that the Plasterboard Group have been forced by the Ministry of Works to value their assets below replacement value in their balance sheet and these fictitiously low figures have been used by the Ministry in their calculations in fixing prices for the Group's products. Any business man knows that replacement values are very much higher today than before the war and any prudent business man is going to provide for replacement of his assets at their present replacement values.
Lastly, there is one point which should not be overlooked. By producing orders such as this—which I do not believe were anticipated when the power to make them was placed on the Statute Book—the Government can create a fictitious market in the shares of companies. They only have to produce an order reducing the maximum selling price allowed to certain companies and down go the shares; then later, they may produce an order increasing the permitted selling price and immediately up go the shares again. They are creating a gamblers' paradise. No company likes to have its shares fluctuating as the result of Government orders. This is an immoral Order and we should hear from the Government tonight that they intend to withdraw it.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Vane (Westmorland): I intervene briefly because I have an interest in this question, not a financial interest, but the concern of my constituents, which is a very important interest for a hon. Member of this House. I entirely support what my hon. Friends have said about the extraordinary constitutional principles involved, by which the Minister now picks and chooses between competitive firms with regard to the maximum prices they may be allowed to charge for their products.
These Orders may work very harshly upon approximately 100 men—and their families—who are employed by Thomas McGhie and Sons, Ltd., who work in North Westmorland. This is a small firm; I think it could be said that it is an efficient firm, with good equipment. I have no technical knowledge, but I have visited the firm, and that is the impression I gained, and which I think other hon. Members would gain from a visit. It seems to me very hard that the prospects of these men should be jeopardised simply because, as it seems to me, of some dispute between the Minister of Works and those who direct the policy of their company.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. First, why is the firm of Thomas McGhie and Sons, Limited, included in the Schedule to this Order; second, has this firm or those responsible for its policy withdrawn from the voluntary agreement covering gypsum rock? I think these two questions are clear and fair. These are not small points. In a scattered and remote district, variety of employment is always a great asset. It is not easy to develop, and when it is there it is as good a foundation for the prosperity of the district as one could have.
In the Pennines, there is a deposit of gypsum rock which is remote from big centres of population, and, therefore, remote from centres of consumption. Hence, the cost of transport for that bulky raw material from the place of mining to the place of final consumption must be high. That leaves very little margin. Margin is important when a small firm is in competition with companies like the Imperial Chemical Industries, as this firm is. If it were to become unprofitable to continue to mine and manufacture gypsum products in this area, or any

area under the group's control, it is possible that this firm would be one of those whose operations would be limited, if not brought to an end.
Therefore, the action of the Minister is, without doubt, damaging to the prospects not only of the company, but also to the prospects of those employed by it, and of their families. There is little alternative employment in this area, and for the skilled men in these works there is virtually none which is worthy of their experience and their skill. I ask the Minister to reconsider the harsh reactions to this policy which are bound to occur if he persists in this extraordinary method of distinguishing in this way between one firm and another.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Crosland: I only want to intervene briefly, because the speeches of hon. Members opposite have not set this important matter in perspective. This is a Prayer against action which patently is intended to reduce the cost of living in general, and of housing in particular. That has not emerged from the speeches of hon. Members opposite. The basic facts, as I understand it, are not challenged. The British Plasterboard Group, the largest producer in this industry, is also the lowest cost producer. In this situation, what is the correct policy for the Government, if it is going to operate a price control system?
Assuming that the Government does not do what is being prayed against, it has two alternatives only. It can set a uniform price so high that it covers the costs of the high cost producer, in which case it will lead to an enormous level of profit for the low cost producer, which is, presumably, not what hon. Members opposite want; or else the Government can set the price low enough to give only reasonable profit to the low cost producers and thus drive the high cost producers out of business. It would be interesting to know which of these alternatives hon. Members opposite want the Government to put into practice. So far we have had no answer from them on that point.
No one can say that the profits of the British Plaster Board Company at the moment are such that the directors, the shareholders, or others are hearing the baying of the wolf at their door. In 1951 their profits—the group trading profits


were well over £1 million: a little lower than in 1950, but in 1950 the profits were four times what they were in 1946. Not an insignificant increase in four years! They declared a 16⅔ per cent. dividend, and one interesting fact which was not mentioned by the hon. Gentleman was that their interim dividend was raised, although admittedly the final dividend was the same as last year. There has been no slump in prices of their shares on the Stock Exchange; in fact, they are standing slightly higher than they stood on 1st January. That is, five months before this Order was made.

Mr. Pickthorn: The hon. Gentleman should, in fairness, say that they are below the 30 shillings at which they were made.

Mr. Crosland: But since then, there has been a bonus issue of 50 per cent. so that, of course, the nominal value of the shares is down by a corresponding amount. And the shares have not slumped since the beginning of the year, which suggests that the Stock Exchange takes a less alarmist view of the Group's profit expectations than did the hon. Member for Carlton.
I revert to my main point. If hon. Members opposite do not like this price discrimination, which of the two other possible policies do they want—a uniformly high price which would allow fantastic profits to British Plaster Board, or a uniformly low price which would drive 'the high cost producer out of business?

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Gammans: I hope that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland) will go to the Trades Union Congress this year and enunciate the principle which he has enunciated tonight. We are dealing here with a principle which strikes at the very heart of trade union agreements. Let me make it perfectly clear that I have not the slightest financial interest in plasterboard and, in fact, in so far as I have any business interests at all, I consider them as competitors in plasterboard. But what we are concerned with tonight is what is a fair and reasonable price when all things are taken into account.
The hon. Member is in favour of penalising the British Plasterboard because they are a low cost producer. If

they decided to be thoroughly inefficient and thereby made a smaller profit, or no profit at all, the hon. Member would come along and say, "All right, raise the price." Let him go to the Trades Union Congress and enunciate that principle, because if that principle is to apply to a firm selling goods, then it should apply before long to a worker selling his labour. One will then turn round and say," Here is a man who is more efficient than that man; therefore, he shall get a lower rate; he is a better worker, and he shall not be paid a higher rate. The other man took home far too much last Friday night, and we will cut it down."
That is the principle at stake tonight. One is asked to turn to an efficient producer and say that, because he is an efficient producer, we shall differentiate between that person and another. I hope that other hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have enough imagination to see where we are getting, would, above all, have nothing to do with that principle, because if that principle can be applied to a seller of a product it can equally be applied to a seller of labour.

Mr. Crosland: Why the hon. Gentleman should think that there is an analogy between labour and capital in a matter of this sort is beyond belief. There is no reason for saying there is an analogy of the kind. But if he objects to this kind of discrimination, which of the two alternatives I have outlined would he pursue?

Mr. Gammans: Of course there is an analogy between the two. If I have heard it from the Labour benches once I have heard it said fifty times that all a man has to sell is his labour. This selling of labour is in exactly the same category as the selling of a product. That surely is the proper principle, with a price fixed on what is reasonable and fair, taking into consideration all the factors involved.
If we set out deliberately to penalise efficiency, one thing is certain, and that is we shall get inefficiency. There will be every inducement for a company not to be efficient and not to be competitive, as we all want to be. Let it get about that the slogan is, "Put up your costs and you will get higher prices allowed," and one will get what the hon. Member appeared to say. He told the plasterboard people so to mismanage their affairs in this coming year as to say,


"We have made no profit at all." He says, "Come along, like the Railways, and say we have made a loss; shove up the prices to the consumers." No one is prepared to say that. One of the problems which faces us today in this country is to persuade the first-rank industrialists to put forward their best efforts with taxation what it is. We are making that problem worse by what we are doing tonight.
A close friend of mine built up a big business almost from nothing after the First World War. The other day he told me that he reckoned he worked for himself on Mondays from 10 a.m. to 11.20 a.m. and for the rest of the week he worked for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. How long will that go on? Will his son and the next generation be prepared to do that? What has carried this man on is his pride in his work, something one will not get in the next generation. If one says to him, "We are going to penalise your business which you have built up and in which you took pride because you are efficient," then where shall we be in regard to the whole of the industrial life of this country?
The second thing that will certainly happen is that we shall get no more capital. What is the point of investing capital in a concern if one is going to treat it in this way? If the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South, gets up and says that Great Britain needs no more capital and that we do not need to modernïse industry, well and good. The argument is at least logical. It comes from this talk about high profits. It is an election stunt which is being worked out. We should be agreed upon the fact that high profits which are due to a monopoly are a thoroughly bad thing. Our grievance on this side of the House is that the Government has not had the courage to tackle high profits which come from that source.

Mr. Speaker: We are discussing plasterboard, and we are not on the general subject of high profits.

Mr. Gammans: I do think that what is behind this is this attitude the Government has about this particular issue. I hope the Minister will take a reasonable attitude in this matter. I think it is a very serious—almost a constitutional question, and certainly a great industrial

question, when a Minister of the Crown comes to this House and says he is going to penalise a man or an industry because it is efficient, because it has a large turnover. Because, believe me, if ever we get to the stage when we are going to penalise industry because it is efficient, it will not be very long before we penalise individuals because they are efficient.

10.51 p.m.

The Minister of Works (Mr. George Brown): I think it might, perhaps, be convenient if I intervened at this stage. The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) expressed the hope that I would take a reasonable attitude. I have been doing that all the way through. There have been very many wild statements about dictatorship and bullying, and tonight we have had an allegation that we have been "un-British." It is no use Members who talk like that talking to me about taking a reasonable attitude.
The hon. Gentleman said a good deal about penalising the company for its efficiency. He went on to say if we did that, it was an obvious road out for the industry to become inefficient and get higher prices. We are not quite so simple as that, and I shall hope to show there is no element of penalising in this matter at all. The company, on the prices that I thought, and still think, reasonable, still get a higher return both on their costs of production, which are not disputed, and on their capital than most, I think, all others in this field. That is because it contains an allowance for their efficiency. If, in fact, the company were to set out to become inefficient, clearly the allowance I now make in the present prices for their efficiency would no longer be justified, and would have to go. That is the way in which a company that thought it was rather clever to do that, would get caught.

Mr. Gammans: From what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, do I understand that if, at the end of the year, the company were to give him proof that they had incurred a loss, then he would consider more favourably raising their prices?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would let me go through my case, as I have let others go through theirs.
When hon. Members are talking about this company being so efficient and others


being inefficient what is the implication? If the others have higher prices is it not inferred that they are inefficient?
The hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) made a reasonable speech. What was the point of the remark he made that if they were inefficient, they would get higher prices? It must contain the implication that the others are inefficient. [An. HON. MEMBER: "Un-British."] Let the hon. Member who talks about being "un-British "be quiet. The point that has to be borne in mind is that this company has 75 per cent. of the total market, and its competitors have about 13 per cent. It has a vastly greater turn-over, and unless our ideas are all wrong, it must follow that it therefore has a natural advantage it happens to have over its competitors. It must follow that with that vastly greater turnover it should be able to do the job at a slightly lower cost per unit of production. Otherwise, there is no point in the increased turnover.

Mr. Pickthorn: rose—

Mr. Brown: It is very difficult in these circumstances to reply to the debate.

Mr. Pickthorn: This kind of debate is largely conducted by question and answer. I always give way. Surely the right hon. Gentleman will admit that "happens" is unfair, since they developed and made the whole market for this product, which does help housing.

Mr. Brown: That seems a very small point. It would be helpful if hon. Members would listen to the argument. By the use of the phrase "happens to have" I was not seeking to reflect on the company, but it so happens, apart from their size and amalgamations, that they are not in the same position with regard to acquiring their raw material as is their competitor, to whom I have allowed a higher price. They have an advantage others have not got, and when one is talking about "penalising for efficiency "one ought to take all that into account.
The argument that it is wrong to have this differential seems strange to a Government which is being continually attacked by the same people on opposite grounds. Before I came to this Department I was privileged to be associated with the Ministry of Agriculture. How many times have we had the argument

such as was put forward in the "Economist" of 26th May—when they attacked this particular Order. Speaking of successful farmers, it said:
It is certain that a system which presents a large number of successful farmers with windfall profits in the interests of prodding the less fortunate or efficient ones into activity will not be tolerated indefinitely by the consuming public. It is odd that a Government which so much dislikes the price mechanism should cling to it in one of its most wasteful manifestations.
That is a view of which we have heard a lot. In this Order I am doing the very thing I am adjured to do in the "Economist"—not giving some people a windfall profit in order to take care of the less efficient. A lot has been said about making the Order at all. Those who are aware of the position—as is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton)—know perfectly well I was as reluctant as anyone to make the Order. I sought every possible way of not making it.
The Order arose in this way. The company gave notice on 28th March in the case of plasterboard, and 3rd April in regard to plaster, that they were withdrawing from the voluntary price agreement. Negotiations went on, and I came to this office in the middle of them. I had immediately to go into this. I discussed it, and I asked the managing director of the company and the chairman to come and see me.
I put it to them that I did not want to have to make a decision in a case like this quite so soon—that there was nothing that had changed—that the computation of their capital was exactly the same as it had been for some years—that the only thing I had changed was that I was allowing the competitor to charge more—and I would prefer, as there was a standing advisory committee on the matter, to call it in, submit the thing to them, and to make my decision in the light of their advice.
The company were already charging higher prices. I said that I would allow them to charge those prices for a further week, until they could get a board meeting, provided they would be willing to recommend to the board that they should resume the voluntary agreement until the Palmer Committee reported. I said that I would join with them in taking every step to get a speedy report from the committee. I thought at the time that the


managing director and the chairman of the company thought there was something in that. I was told on the telephone the next day that they were not able to recommend that, that all they would recommend was not to have another price increase during the next month. I said that that was no offer at all.
It was because they were not prepared to continue the voluntary agreement that had gone on for some years until we got a report from the committee that I was forced to make the Order. The Order would not have been before the House at all if that had not been so. I assure the House that that is exactly how it came about, as everybody knows who had anything to do with it.
If I had not made the Order it would have meant that in an industry which was price controlled because of its importance—it affects housing, textiles, agriculture, and other highly important industries—I would have stepped out of the field at the bidding of a large group in the industry and allowed them to decide what the price was to be. How could that be done for plasterboard and not over all the range of other materials? It virtually meant the end of price control. It is up to hon. Gentlemen to argue that we ought not to have price control. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hornsey took the view that by controlling prices in this way we were penalising efficiency.

Mr. Gammans: I said nothing of the sort. I said that when there was a differential price there was penalisation of efficiency.

Mr. Brown: That is how it works in this case. It applies the differential. One could argue that, but I hope the constituents of Carlton—and my own—will appreciate that that is the argument hon. Members are putting up.
I took the opposite point of view. I said that if the company were taking that line I could not allow them to become the price-fixing authority; therefore, I must move to hold the position temporarily until I got the advice of the committee which has dealt with this sort of thing over a period of years. I have fixed the position, admittedly at what 1 thought to be the right figure, but only until we get some advice from the committee and can look at it again. Whether

there is to be a continuing order will then depend on the decision of the company.
I should be happy to get back to the voluntary price control here as for other building materials, and as I have recently been told by other members of the Building Producers' Council they prefer. But if they continue to increase prices there will have to be a continuing order if I am to do the job as I think it ought to be done. On the question whether the price is fair, I believe it is. Hon. Members may believe it is not. We shall have the report of the Palmer Committee, and we shall then all be in a much stronger position. The price they wanted to have allowed them in the case of plasterboard was 15·8 per cent. on the cost of production. With plaster and gypsum it would have allowed them 19 per cent. on the cost of production. This does not bring in the disputed figure of the capital computation. That is not peculiar to this industry: it is an issue which covers the whole field of industry and which the F.B.I. have been discussing separately.
I am not discussing that now. I am dealing with the question of the cost of production, about which there is no dispute at all. I will not go into the argument about the figures as to capital, whether it is £9 million or £14 million, because when the report comes to me I shall have to act. I do not wish it to be thought that I have a prejudiced mind or a closed mind on the subject, so it would be better, despite some unfair and inaccurate arguments, if I did not enter into the argument tonight.
I come to the question of the differential, which has been described as the most important point. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland) put his finger on the point. If one takes the view that there is to be price control, and one has an industry in which one firm has 13 per cent. of the output, one firm has 75 per cent., one firm has its source of materials under its own control, and one has to acquire its materials from a much more expensive source, one is faced with the position that to give the small man enough to keep him going, if the same price is to be allowed all round, the big man will be given a price which will provide him with an unreasonable return upon his costs and his capital. Alternatively, if we have one price, he can be given a price which is fair and the small


man will be left to get along as best he can or go to the wall.
For reasons which I would be prepared to debate at length, I took the view that in the nature of this industry it ought not to be my action which put the small man out of business. It may well be that market conditions would do that if it were a free market—I do not know; I would hope not—but it ought not to be my action which did it. If I gave the industry a price which was justified on the big man's cost of production, it would have that effect. Even on the differential price the small man is barely making a profit as it is. He is just keeping going. [An HON. MEMBER: "The LCI"] No, it is not the I.C.I. It is Plaster Products, at Greenhithe, which is a different company. I am not concerned with I.C.I., because they are not germane to the argument at all. Since I was not prepared, off my own bat, to justify an extravagant return, and I was not prepared to put the small man out of business, I took the line that I ought to have a differential and make sure they both stayed in business.

Mr. Duncan Sandys: The right hon. Gentleman said that very likely if there had been no price control and there had been a free market, the small firm would have been driven out of business. I am not discussing whether that is right or wrong, but it means, in effect, that the price of plasterboard might have been lower if there were no price control at all.

Mr. Brown: No. With respect, I think the lateness of the hour has befuddled the right hon. Gentleman. If the big company were prepared to push their prices up even with a competitor in the field, what does he imagine they would do without a competitor at all? Obviously, if one let the only competitor in existence go out of business, the company would have a completely free monopoly with the whole of the output in their own hands. What has happened has given me no strong reason for thinking that they would not have reaped the whole benefit.
There is nothing new about this differential. In 1946 a statement was issued on the price controlling of building materials after consultation with the Building Materials Producers' Council, and in that paper we deal with the question of what should be done where the producers' costs vary widely, and we have this

problem. The statement went on to enumerate four ways of dealing with that, one of which was
the fixing of different prices for different producers.
It has always been envisaged, and I believe everybody has always thought it right to do it.
There are two other points I wish to make before I sit down. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) asked, quite fairly, what about Thomas McGhie & Sons, Ltd., who produce gypsum? Have they threatened to go outside the Order? As he knows, they are a subsidiary, wholly owned by the group, and it is to be assumed that their policy will be the policy of the group. It is quite true that the group have not voluntarily walked out in this case, as they did in the other case. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the statement to the Press?"] I have not issued a statement to the Press. I am the only party to this argument who has not issued a statement to the Press.
Although they have not stepped out in the case of gypsum, I took the view that I had better cover that case with an Order, first, because it has always been difficult to disentangle the figures for plaster from the figures for gypsum. They have always been put in together by the group and dealt with together. After all, the public had to pay an increased price for several weeks because the company walked out of the voluntary agreement before I could lay an Order. Having once had that experience, I did not feel justified in taking the risk of the public for weeks having to pay a higher price for gypsum because I could not make an order. For the sake of completeness, I thought I had better keep the whole thing as one and refer it to the Palmer Committee.
I do not believe we are threatening the livelihood of the employees of Thomas McGhie & Sons, Ltd., because if efficient production means anything, then allowing one undertaking to undercut its competitors cannot possibly be a threat to the livelihood of the people working in that undertaking. It must be the other way around. One must be putting them in a position to be able to capture the market.
There is just one other thing to be said about the Palmer Committee. A lot has been said about the Palmer Committee tonight. Let hon. Members realise what it is. The Palmer Committee was set up by one of my predecessors several


years ago to advise him on this very question of price control. The members of it are, first, Sir William Palmer, the chairman, who was the principal industrial adviser to the Board of Trade, and who is now the chairman of the British Rayon Federation. There is Sir Arnold Plant, Professor of Commerce in the University of London. There is Mr. P. F. Carpenter, a member of the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, nominated by the Institute for the purpose. There is Mr. Ryan, the vice-chairman of the Metal Box Company, and Sir Luke Fawcett, a lone member of the trade union movement on the committee.
I should have thought that there could not be a much more respectable body or circumspect body from the point of view of industrialists than that. Is it not significant that the only one of the two of us who was not prepared to let the case go to that Committee was the company? I was prepared to let it go there. I was prepared that nothing should be done until we received the report. Yet here is someone who says, "We mean to do as we like without it going there."
I think the simple issue is whether I should allow British Plasterboard to decide for themselves at what price plasterboard should be sold at a time of great demand and inadequate supply. If this Prayer is carried, the price of three-quarters of the plasterboard sold in this country and most of the plaster and gypsum will go up immediately and considerably. If it happens in this case, how can we stop it happening in similar industries? It would mean a very considerable rise in the price of some very important things. I have moved to prevent that happening and I believe that on this issue I shall have the bulk of informed opinion behind me.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. W. Robson-Brown: I sincerely hope that this Order will be revoked tonight. I want to divorce my mind and that of the House from any question of the company's share capital or anything else relating to this matter except the one simple fact of principle which is involved in it. It is a fundamental principle to which the House should give very careful consideration. I must say that I was very surprised that

the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland) adopted the argument which he advanced, and I think that when he reads his speech in HANSARD he will regret having made it.
The position is clear and precise and boils down to this, that this Order will increase the monopoly powers of the largest producer in the industry. It is on that I base my argument. The position at this moment is that the Plasterboard Group produce 70 per cent. of the plasterboard made in this country. The effect of making two prices and of their competitors in the business quoting higher prices than them inevitably will be to drive the business into the hands of the biggest manufacturer. For this I have no better evidence than the document to which the hon. Gentleman the Minister referred—Price Control of Building Materials, 1946. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the document gave four methods of dealing with a situation like this, and I will read from page 3, paragraph (d):
The fixing of different prices for different producers. This involves difficulty of distribution unless the producers of particular products can he confined to particular areas, which is not practicable in this particular industry. If this cannot he done orders will tend to go to the low price producers at the expense of the high price firms, with the consequent over loading of the low price producers.

Mr. G. Brown: An important consideration here is the supply of plasterboard as against the demand. We need every ounce that is produced at the moment, by whomever it is produced, to get anywhere near the demand.

Mr. Robson-Brown: The position now is that British Plasterboard have a 30 per cent. capacity which is not being used. Is that correct? I would advise the right hon. Gentleman to make himself acquainted with the facts, because I understand that is the position. If they have the raw materials, they can increase production and put their competitors out of business.

Mr. G. Brown: That may be so, but they can only get the materials if I diverted them away from the small cost men to them, and that is what I am not prepared to do.

Mr. Robson-Brown: That is what I suspected was in the minds of the right hon. Gentleman's advisers. This is a most cumbersome way of dealing with the matter. I am with the right hon.


Gentleman in the opinion that there should never have been any need for the introduction of this Order and that the industry, the Minister and the Palmer Committee could have found a satisfactory way out. The report on price controls indicates five ways in which a satisfactory solution could be found. At present Government spokesmen are preaching over the country the iniquities of unfair price fixing. There is not a more glaring example of it than this Order.
Hon. Members on both sides object against monopolies. I am satisfied that in the long run such orders as this increase the danger of monopoly and enforced monopolies. I wonder what the productivity teams who come back from America and what the United States think when they see an order of this kind? I should have imagined it would have been better for the industry and the Minister to have taken counsel together to see whether the high costed producers could have been assisted by the others with advice and research, which is the modern tendency in industry, and worked together to find a solution.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The Minister was prepared to do that.

Mr. Robson-Brown: I do not want to prolong the debate on that.
The Government say they are always concerned about price fixing. If the industry had done this on its own and created two prices for a product in short supply, there would have been a howl about it from the party opposite, but in this case it is being done by Government order. What it seeks to do is to discriminate in favour of the high cost producer against the low cost producer. Was there ever a time in the history of the nation when it was so important to encourage the maximum efficiency of every firm of every kind, and to put up no barriers. This puts a premium upon efficiency, and hon. Members on the Government side cannot argue that way. The hon. Member for Hornsey put his finger upon the point. Here is an inducement to the inefficient to slacken its efforts, because what incentive is there in present conditions?
The Minister was up against a problem which is almost insoluble. It is now a new problem. We are always facing it in

industry. It is, in effect, virtually the law of supply and demand, and the survival of the fittest. What the Minister ought to have endeavoured to do was to make all fit to survive. There is no question that this now has to be remedied, and I hope it will be remitted to the Palmer Committee. Some solution of a satisfactory character will have to be found.
I believe that what has happened is that there has been a dispute between the Minister and the British Plaster Board Company, and the Minister has decided that he will discipline the company. To do this he has fixed the maximum selling price for the company at below a level which will give a decent return to the company. This is something which I do not wish to see in British political life.
I am reminded of lines in the "Charge of the Light Brigade":
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) pointed out that the Ministry can, by fluctuating orders, spell the life and death of any particular company.

Mr. Dames: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) is lying in a peculiar position.

Mr. Robson-Brown: I do not think the Minister ever intended such a situation to arise. I believe that the best thing that could happen is for this Order to be rescinded and for the matter to be referred to the Palmer Committee.

Mr. G. Brown: I had to move to stop the company behaving as it was, but I did what I said I would do in any case—straightaway referred the matter to the Palmer Committee. It has been with that Committee for a couple of weeks.

Mr. Robson-Brown: I hope that never again will an order be brought before the House which creates two different prices, or, worse still, two prices as between one company and another. Action such as this could be the death knell of any private company.

11.23 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I noticed that the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson-Brown) used a quotation which included the word "reason." I wonder if he was thinking, while he was speaking, of his own reasoning. The hon. Member said that he did


not want to encourage a monopoly by, enabling its products to go on to the market more cheaply than the products of its competitors. He argued that that would drive their competitors out of the market, and that the monopoly would thereby be strengthened. I am sure that the hon. Member was in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) was giving exactly the opposite reason for the withdrawal of this Order.
The hon. Member for Hornsey said that by bringing in this Order we were moving against this most fortunate firm, with its 75 per cent. of all the manufacture of plasterboard, and were breaking a sacred principle. I have not stated this unfairly. These two arguments seem not to be reasonable. We on this side of the House want to offer another principle altogether. I had an opportunity of speaking on this matter in 1946, when the hon. Member for Hornsey was also sitting opposite, and my point of view then, as now, is that this material is essential for housing. When I spoke on this subject then plasterboard was in very short supply, and I think it was agreed that this particular group of firms had a virtual monopoly in the trade.
My hon. Friends and I ask for as much competition as possible because the principle really is that we should get our houses built, and the people served. Perhaps I am making constituency points, but that concerns every hon. Member in the House. When I referred to this matter some years ago, I said that profits had varied between 20 and 25 per cent., but my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland) says they are down to 16⅔ per cent. That, I think, is still fairly reasonable.
This group, which came in early and obtained a virtual monopoly—not, I agree, by chance, or unfairly—gain an advantage if these orders bring about the voluntary negotiations and agreement we all want. Then all is well, but we on this side stick to our principle that it is the community which comes first.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. Assheton: We have had an extremely interesting debate, and I rise to comment on one or two things which have been said on behalf of the Government from the Front

Bench, and also upon what was said by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland). I intervene because, for a number of years, I represented Rushcliffe, in Nottinghamshire, from where much of the gypsum production of this country comes. I have no connection with the group of companies under discussion, but have had knowledge of its operations for a number of years and I should like, therefore, to express some views.
I would say at the outset that I do not agree with the figures which were given by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South, as to the profits of the group, and I am prepared to show him a balance sheet after the House has adjourned.

Mr. Ellis Smith: What are the profits?

Mr. Assheton: I am prepared to go into that in detail if the hon. Member wishes, and have already promised to do that with his hon. Friend.

Mr. Smith: Over the last two years?

Mr. Assheton: The consolidated profit was £451,000 last year, and this year, as hon. Members will see in "The Times" today, it is something less.

Mr. G. Brown: Could we have the gross figures?

Mr. Assheton: The gross figures were £1,500,000 trading profit for that year, and for this year it is something lower.
The first point is the question of discrimination, and I think that the case has been well put by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) as well as several other hon. Members. Here we have a group of companies whose selling price is fixed by the Government, and at a price lower than that which their competitors are allowed to charge. There is still a considerable amount of industry run by free enterprise in this country, but hon. Members opposite would see that sphere diminished, and the nationalised industries increased; but so long as the capitalist element survives it must be allowed to work.
I should like to suggest that the capitalist system does not have a chance to work if the most efficient producers, or the most efficient people in business, are not allowed to make more than the least efficient. It is just the same as working on piece rates. If the man who


works hard is not going to get more than the man who does not work so hard, the system breaks down.

Mr. G. Brown: He is getting about £1 million a year more.

Mr. Assheton: That is not at all relevant, but the argument is just the same.
The right hon. Gentleman gave an illustration from his experience at the Ministry of Agriculture. He said that the same number of the "Economist," which criticised severely these orders about plaster and plasterboard, also criticised the Government about its attitude to agricultural prices. All the time the right hon. Gentleman was at the Ministry of Agriculture, did he introduce differential prices? When the milk producers in North-East Lancashire said that it cost more to produce milk because they were on the Pennines than it did in the South of England, did he offer higher prices? He did nothing of the kind. He offered the same price to everybody. He cannot say one thing in one case, and another in another.

Mr. Brown: The two instances are entirely different.

Mr. Assheton: I cannot agree more, but the right hon. Gentleman gave the illustration from agriculture and applied it to this industry. Therefore, I am entitled to reply to his criticism. I do not think any hon. Member opposite appreciated how the capitalist system works. As long as it works, the more efficient firm, the more efficient business, and the more efficient man must be allowed to make more than the less efficient. Here is a group of companies, highly efficient, and competing, for example, with the I.C.I.. which is not a poor company but which is to be allowed to charge a higher price than the British Plaster Board Company.
We want to come to the question: "Is the price fair"? I explained that we, on this side of the House, criticised these Orders first because they are discriminatory, which we think is a wrong principle to introduce and which is a new principle for the Minister to introduce by Order. The right hon. Gentleman has not another order in his whole Department which is discriminatory in this way. Am I right? That is not challenged. Is the price fair? I would suggest there has been a considerable misunderstanding on the part of his officials and on

his own part, and on the part of his predecessor.
I believe that the Minister has failed to understand how the capital structure of this particular group of companies was built up. I remember very well how it was built up in the 'thirties. What happened, for example, was that the Plaster Board Company bought a large gypsum group in Nottinghamshire and paid for the shares of that company by issuing to the shareholders shares in British Plasterboard. These were 5s. shares. They were at that time standing in the market at 40s. a share, or eight times their par value. The equivalent which the sellers received was £2 and not 5s.
But when the Minister and his advisers come to try and calculate the capital of the Company they are looking back at the 5s. rather than at the £2. Naturally, that leads to a very strange conclusion. It leads to the conclusion that the Minister believes, quite sincerely, that he is remunerating the shareholders of this company with the return of 15 per cent. of their capital. The facts are that if we take, instead of the nominal capital, the cash or cash equivalent that has been invested in this business, far from earning 15 per cent., which the Minister thought he had given, the return is only 2·2 per cent.
Let us see about the shares of the company at the present time. I think it was my hon. Friend behind me who said when the recent issue of shares was made, the Capital Issues Committee fixed the price at 30s. That price is now the equivalent of 20s. in view of the increase of capital to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That was the price the Capital Issues Committee fixed, and these shares now stand at 15s.

Mr. Crosland: But they are still higher than they were on 1st January—five months before this Order was made.

Mr. Assheton: Maybe.
Everyone who invested money at that time has lost a quarter of his capital, and he is only getting a return of about 4 per cent. on the money invested. That is not a high return on a business of this sort. Since this, however, things have gone much worse, and although in the first half of last year the profit level was good, in the second half year it was very


much less good, and the result of that was that the profits for the whole year were lower than the year before.
If things go on as they are now, that profit will be very much reduced and the dividend will also have to be reduced. This is a serious thing, and I will explain why. This is a great and expanding company, and it may have to go to the City or the shareholders for new capital. It is not very easy for a company to go to the City or the shareholders, when it has just substantially reduced its dividends, and when it is subject to treatment of this sort.
I am not the only person, nor are hon. Members on this side the only people who have been critical. There was a very critical leading article in "The Times," and strong criticism in the "Economist" and in the "News-Chronicle"—and those are not all Conservative newspapers. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should pay serious attention to these criticisms. It is a very difficult matter and it is becoming more and more difficult to raise risk capital in this country. If we look at the issues of new capital made over the last year or two we see that an enormous amount of fixed interest capital has been raised—debentures, preference shares, and so on—but to get money for risk capital for ordinary shares is becoming more and more difficult. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to take that into account and to remember what he is doing here is something quite novel for his Department.
I should like to refer to the question as to whether this industry is charging fair prices to the consumers for the products; if the Order is not passed, and the company get their way instead of the Minister, the additional cost, I think to the building of each house would be about 8s. I want to refer to a most interesting pamphlet I recently received from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. On page 22 there is a table giving prices of all the different building

materials, showing prices pre-war and prices today. It is significant that the prices of plaster, plasterboard and gypsum have risen less than practically any other building material in the whole country.

We see that cement has increased by over double, bricks by 82 per cent., soft wood five times, lead six times, but plasterboard and gypsum have increased about two thirds above pre-war prices —and that is not unreasonable. That shows efficiency. That shows the company has been doing its job well by the community, and it is grossly unfair to suggest the prices they are asking are unreasonable.

We have two issues to decide tonight. The first is whether it is right to discriminate in this way and offer a lower price to the more efficient concerns. Secondly, whether the prices actually fixed in the Order are fair. It is extraordinarily difficult to argue accountancy problems across the Floor of the House, but I beg the Minister to look at the matter again, and see whether he cannot form a conclusion different to that formed up to now. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that this had gone to the Palmer Committee. I have a great respect for the chairman of that Committee. He is an able man, and was a very able civil servant, but the Committee is not an independent tribunal, but a body appointed by the Minister.

We think this is a bad Order—a very bad one because it discriminates in this way between different producers in the same industry. The right hon. Gentleman has not denied that he has made no other discriminatory Order in the building industry, and to mark our disapproval, particularly against this discrimination I must advise those on this side of the House to vote in favour of the Prayer.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes 157; Noes, 141.

Division No. 166.]
AYES
[11.42 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Black, C. W.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)


Arbuthnot, John
Bossom, A. C.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G, T.


Ashton, M. (Chelmsford)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Bullock, Capt. M.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)


Astor, Hon. M. L.
Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.
Clarke, Col. Ralph {East Grinstead)


Baxter, A. B.
Braine, B. R,
Clarke, Brig. Terence {Portsmouth, W.)


Bell, R. W.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Colegate, A.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Braithwaile, Lt.-Cmdr G.(Bristol, N.W.)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.


Birch, Nigel
Bromley-Davenport, Lt Col. W.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)




Cranborne, Viscount
Lambert, Hon. G.
Robson-Brown, W.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Crouch, R. F.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)
Lindsay, Martin
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cundiff, F. W.
Linstead, H. N.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Scott, Donald


de Chair, Somerset
Low, A. R. W.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Deedes, W. F,
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spearman, A. C. M.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Donner, P. W.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Drewe, C.
McKibbin, A. J.
Storey, S.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Erroll, F. J.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Fisher, Nigel Fraser, Sir I. (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Studholme, H. G


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Summers, G. S.


Gage, C. H.
Maitland, Cmdr. J. W.
Sutcliffe, H.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Gammans, L. D.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Teeling, W.


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Grimston, Robert (Westbury)
Mellor, Sir John
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Molson, A. H. E.
Touche, G. C.


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Monckton, Sir Walter
Turner, H. F. L.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Turton, R. H.


Hay, John
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Vane, W. M. F.


Heald, Lionel
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Vosper, D. F.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hollis, M. C.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-Super-Mare)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Watkinson, H. A.


Hornsbrugh, Rt. Hon,-Florence
Peto, Brig, C. H. M.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Pitman, I. J.
Wheatley, Maj. M. J. (Poole)


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Williams, Charles (Torquay)


Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Raikes, H. V.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Jennings, R.
Redmayne, M.
Wills, G.


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Wood, Hon. R.


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Renton, D. L. M.



Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Robertson, Sir David (Caithness)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S)
Mr. Pickthorn and




Mr. Charles Taylor.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Keenan, W.


Awbery, S. S.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Kenyon, C.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
King, Dr. H. M.


Balfour, A.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Kinley, J.


Bartley, P.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington E.)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Benn, Wedgwood
Foot, M. M.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Benson, G.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Longden, Fred (Small Heath)


Blenkinsop, A.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S
MacColl, J. E.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Gibson, C. W.
Mack, J. D.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Gilzean, A.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur {Wakefield)
Mellish, R. J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Grey, C F.
Mikardo, Ian


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mitchison G R.


Callaghan, L. J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moeran, E W.


Champion, A. J.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Monslow, W.


Cooks, F. S.
Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)
Moody, A. S.


Coldrick, W.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Morley, R.


Cooper, John (Deptford)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Mort D. L.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hardy, E. A.
Moyle, A.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hargreaves, A.
Mulley F W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hastings, S.
Nally, W.


Daines, P.
Herbison, Miss M.
Neal Harold (Balsover)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hobson, C. R.
Padley, W. E.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Holman, P.
Pannell, T. C.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Pargiter, G. A.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Houghton, D.
Pearson, A.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Popplewell, E.


Deer, G
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Delargy, H J
Hynd, J. B. (Atterclffle)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Diamond, J.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Proctor, W. T.


Donnelly, D.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J. (W. Bromwich)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)





Richards, R.
Sparks, J. A.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Stross, Dr. Barnett
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Sylvester, G. O.
Wilkins, W. A.


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Ross, William
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Simmons, C. J.
Thurtle, Ernest
Yates, V. F.


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wallace, H. W.



Snow, J. W.
Watkins, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Bowden and Mr. Royle.

Resolved:

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 11th May 1951, entitled the Plasterboard (Prices) (No. 1) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 864), a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th May, be annulled.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — BUILDING PLASTERS (PRICES)

Resolved:

That an humble Address he presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 11th May, 1951, entitled the Building Plasters (Prices) (No. 1) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 865), a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th May, be annulled.—[Mr. C. S. Taylor.]

Orders of the Day — GYPSUM ROCK (PRICES)

Resolved:

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 11th May, 1951, entitled the Gypsum Rock (Prices) (No. 1) Order. 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 866), a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th May, be annulled.—[Mr. C. S. Taylor.]

Addresses to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Captain Crookshank: In view of the fact that the House has now annulled three Government Orders, may I ask the Leader of the House what he proposes to do, because on the last occasion on which this happened we were told that the will of the House would be respected, but the Order was reintroduced almost at once. May we take it that after such a decisive decision as this, this Order is dead?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The House has decided that the three Orders shall be annulled. They will be annulled. I beg pardon; no, they are not annulled until His Majesty gives his consent. I am not trying to score a point. That is the correct formula to use. I shall consider

with my right hon. Friends the proper course to pursue in view of the decision of the House on these three Orders.

Orders of the Day — HOSPITAL COMMITTEE, WIMBLEDON (OFFICER'S DISMISSAL)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wilkins.]

11.52 p.m.

Mr. Black: I wish to raise with the Minister of Health the case of a constituent of mine, Mr. John Griffith, who until his dismissal was the Chief Administrative Officer for the St. Helier Group Hospital Management Committee. It has long been laid down as a principle in this country that it is not only necessary that justice should be done but that justice should also appear to be done. In this case it is my contention that it is probable that justice has not been done, and it is certain that justice does not appear to have been done.
The case which I desire to raise has been dealt with at some length in a striking article which appeared in "The Hospital" for May, 1951, under the heading "A case history of victimisation." I am indebted to this article for much of the information which I desire to bring before the House tonight.
It has very properly become an accepted principle of employment in the public services that, subject to continued competence and good behaviour in the performance of their duties, officers employed in them should be afforded security of tenure. It has further become accepted that as a matter of normal practice there should exist a code of procedure for dealing with disciplinary cases, the accepted objects of such machinery being to ensure that before any severe disciplinary action is irrevocably taken


against an officer he or she shall be made aware of the grounds on which the action is contemplated and afforded the opportunity of a hearing to appeal against it.
These normal standards of practice have, in my submission, been violated in the case which I am now bringing before the House and I will proceed to deal, as far as time permits, with the details of the case. The officer concerned in this matter, Mr. John Griffith, F.H.A., was appointed to the post of chief administrative officer of the St. Helier Group Hospital Management Committee in September, 1948. At the time, as reported in a letter from the regional hospital board to the Ministry of Health, the Committee expressed the view—and this is a quotation—that the group "required a secretary of the right calibre" and that in its view Mr. Griffith fulfils all "requirements," being "outstanding" among the applicants for the post.
Until after March, 1950, Mr. Griffith's efficiency and conduct in his office was at no time the subject of criticism by his committee. On the other hand, it is clear that various aspects of the policy of the management committee were resented by certain of the senior medical and nursing officers in the group and complaints clandestinely made behind the back of the committee to the regional hospital board headquarters. These backstairs representations evidently bore fruit and differences of opinion arose between the committee and the regional hospital board.
Such differences came to a head in March, 1950, when the chairman of the management committee, Mr. Bentley Purchase, a well-known, respected and experienced public figure, and the chairman of its establishment committee, Mr. F. J. Grimme, were not re-appointed at the expiry of their term of office, in consequence of which the chairman of its finance committee, Mr. Milton Ely, resigned in protest. On 17th April, 1950, the vice-chairman of the regional board, Mr. A. G. Linfield, was appointed acting-chairman of the management committee and has remained as such since, while at the same time five vacancies in a total committee membership of 19 were allowed to remain unfilled.
Although he sought at the time for an explanation, none was offered to Mr. Bentley Purchase in respect of the de-

cision not to re-appoint him. Since, however, at the same time he was offered the chairmanship of another management committee in the same group, his removal was presumably not made on the grounds of incompetence, or other unsuitability for such a post. In effect, all the evidence points to the fact that he and the chairman of the establishment committee were removed from their offices not merely with the object of re-organising the management committee with personalities who would be willing to pursue a policy more in conformity with that thought desirable by the regional hospital board, but with the further specific object of securing the removal of Mr. Griffith from his post of chief administrative officer. In a word, here was what appears to be a case of packing the committee.
Following the appointment of the vice-chairman of the regional board as acting chairman of the committee, Mr. Griffith's removal did not take long to develop. On the occasion of his first visit to the group, the new chairman referred to the "unhappy state of affairs in the group," but subsequently never fulfilled an undertaking to discuss the alleged difficulties with the chief administrative officer. On 25th May, 1950, less than two months later, he spoke to Mr. Griffith of the possibility of his position being considered, but without specifying in what way, and then shortly afterwards instructed the chief administrative officer to include in the notice of a meeting of the management committee to be held on 12th June. 1950, the following note:
The Chairman will be glad if following the conclusion of the official business members will remain to consider questions relating to the staffing of the group.
No indication whatsoever was given to Mr. Griffith at or prior to this meeting that his own position was to be under review. At the conclusion of the meeting he and other officers were instructed to withdraw. Afterwards, Mr. Griffith was seen by the acting chairman, who informed him that it was the wish of the committee that he should leave and that he should be given the option of tendering his resignation. Mr. Griffith asked what the alternative was, and he was informed that it was likely to be dismissal. He was further informed that his efficiency was not called into question, it being added that on the contrary the committee was in agreement that his effi-


ciency and his personal and professional reputation were above question. The general lines of the committee's point of view were put to him as being rather that the man did not fit the job—though how this could properly be said without criticism of Mr. Griffith's efficiency or conduct it is difficult to understand.
Mr. Griffith did not tender his resignation, but on 22nd June he wrote to the acting chairman, stating that it was his intention to meet their wishes by leaving as soon as he obtained a suitable post, which he hoped would not be long delayed. The reply then received by Mr. Griffith from the acting chairman was striking in two ways. First, it gave him notice of summary dismissal as from 10th July, 1950—later amended to 30th August—with three months' salary in lieu of notice. Secondly, it confirmed that Mr. Griffith's "efficiency was not in question" and that "there was no imputation whatever" on his "personal and professional reputation."
This remarkable insistence that neither Mr. Griffith's efficiency in his post nor his personal or professional reputation were in any way called into question were further stressed in a number of testimonials given to him by the acting chairman, the vice-chairman and other members of the management committee. These are the kind of phrases which are contained in these testimonials, which I have seen. He is described as energetic, efficient, capable, hardworking, conscientious, courteous, believing in consultation, and a man with whom it had been a pleasure and privilege to work. If, indeed, all these testimonials were true and there was no cause for criticism of Mr. Griffith's efficiency or of his personal and professional reputation, what grounds were there for his summary dismissal? No ground was in fact forthcoming.
Mr. Griffith's professional organisation, and his trade union, jointly took up his case with the hospital management committee. To their request that the action of dismissal should not be proceeded with without proper inquiry, the committee replied that it did not intend to formulate specific charges and that, as the notice of dismissal was one which it was legally empowered to make, it did not propose to alter it.
Ultimately, no less than four months later, alleged grounds were given for Mr.

Griffith's dismissal by the management committee in a statement of the case submitted to the regional hospital board in November, 1950, when that body had agreed to set up a committee to hear an appeal by Mr. Griffith. A reply to this statement was jointly submitted on behalf of Mr. Griffith. It was then expected that, in the customary way, an oral hearing of the case, for which a date had been fixed and notified to the parties, would take place before the appeals committee, with both parties represented and calling such witnesses as they desired.
To the astonishment of Mr. Griffith and his organisations, this hearing never took place. Three days before it was due to be held, they were informed by the regional board that the appeals committee had decided that no hearing was necessary and that it had disallowed the appeal. That decision was subsequently confirmed by the board on the 3rd January, 1951. This decision not to hold an appeal would have been remarkable in any circumstances. In these circumstances it was literally a shocking proceeding.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I do not want to interrupt unduly, but is the hon. Member suggesting that there is some automatic right of appeal to the regional board?

Mr. Black: I am not suggesting that there is an automatic right of appeal. What I am suggesting is that in circumstances of this kind justice demands that such an appeal should be held. I am submitting that a date was fixed, and it was only three days before the date fixed that the appeal was called off.

Mr. Blenkinsop: It is rather important. The employing body is unquestionably the management committee.

Mr. Black: Whether that is so or not, the board evidently took the view, in the first place, that it was competent to have an appeal, and that it was its -duty to do so, because it fixed a date, received written statements from the parties, and proceeded to adjudicate upon the appeal and to dismiss it without giving the parties an opportunity to be heard. Those are the facts. The charges which were listed in the written case before the appeals committee were vague, indefinite, and unsatisfactory in the extreme. They could


not possibly be regarded as adequate grounds for dismissal.
After the refusal to hear the appeal, representations were made to the Minister requesting him in the circumstances, as a matter of common justice, to appoint a committee of inquiry. The answer to this request was a refusal by the Minister to intervene. Subsequently the case was again taken up with the Minister, this time with the support of the staff side of the Administrative and Clerical Staffs Whitley Council. But no action has resulted so far from these representations.
To a written Question in this House, a reply was given by the Minister. He took refuge in the assertion that the appointment and dismissal of hospital staff were matters for the hospital authority concerned, and that it was therefore not proper for him to intervene. He was, therefore, not prepared to intervene. That, I consider, is ill-founded and unsatisfactory. He chose to ignore that under the National Health Service Act the hospital authorities to which he referred carry out their functions as agents of the Minister, who, in his turn, is responsible to Parliament.
My appeal tonight is that the Minister should reconsider the untenable attitude he then adopted, and now provide facilities for a full and impartial inquiry into Mr. Griffith's case. The offer of a colonial appointment obtained by Mr. Griffith has been withdrawn, and he has had no employment for nearly a full year, and has only this week obtained another post at not much more than half of his previous salary. Justice and humanity demand that Mr. Griffith should be able to vindicate his good name and professional capacity and, even at this late hour, I say to the Minister, let justice be done.

12.12 a.m.

Mr. W. Griffiths: I think that the whole House will be grateful to the hon. Member opposite for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) for having raised this case of a former employee of the St. Helier Group Hospital Management tonight. The hon. Gentleman has so fully and completely covered all aspects of this case that there is not much which I can add; but I would say that in my view Mr. Griffith has been treated quite monstrously.
I would just say this to the Parliamentary Secretary who is to reply; for

myself, I do not care who was responsible for Mr. Griffith's dismissal. What I am concerned with is that, if prima facie, it is established that an injustice has been done, then it is the responsibility of the Minister of Health to set up an inquiry in order that it be made quite clear, beyond all possible doubt, that this man has been treated in the right way or, on the contrary, in a way which hon. Members on both sides of this House consider to be disgraceful.
Let me say to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that if the Minister is going to say that this was something which took place before he assumed office, then he is taking refuge in something wrong. Dreyfus would have been on Devil's Island for ever had that been the principle, and this less well known and perhaps more humble man—who is not one of my constituents —will have to suffer. I had a circular about him, and as with so many circulars which hon. Members receive, I perhaps did not give it the attention I should have done. I am ashamed that I did not take the full interest which I should have done.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon has made a very good case tonight, and it would be disgraceful if the Minister should refuse an inquiry. Interested parties on the management committee offered the explanation that the reason for Mr. Griffith's dismissal was that his personality was incompatible with that of the rest of the management committee. All I can say is that if that ever becomes a criterion for employment in a public service, then we shall have reached a very dangerous stage indeed.
Let this House always be on guard against a public service developing a system where an individual employed in it cannot be suitably protected from the jealousies and the evil consequences of group practices against the rights of an individual.

12.16 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): After this short debate on this unfortunate dismissal, I should say that there appear to me to be two major issues. Firstly, there is the personal issue of the individual concerned, Mr. Griffith, and the question whether my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health should intervene in any way; and, secondly, there is the wider


problem of the lack of any accepted disciplinary procedure in the hospital field.
In regard to the first point, which has been the major subject of the argument of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black), I find it very difficult to understand the arguments of Members opposite who, at one and the same time, complain of too much interference by Whitehall—or even by Savile Row, now that the Ministry of Health has moved there—in the day-to-day work of the hospital authorities, and yet, in individual cases, when they may dislike the decision of these hospital authorities, continuously demand that we should interfere. That seems to be a fantastic position. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about an appeal? "] In business and in the local authority world, there is, of course, an appeal to the employing authority, and we should naturally wish to ensure that there was that right of appeal.
The suggestion that there should be an automatic right of appeal to the Minister seems to me to go against the whole argument, particularly of hon. Members opposite, who complain bitterly, almost every day of the week, of the way in which the Minister and Whitehall are interfering with the conduct of the business of management committees and hospital authorities.

Dr. Hill: Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that what is here sought is that the Minister should assume a responsibility for ensuring that no official of a regional hospital board or of a hospital management committee is unfairly dismissed? To call that centralisation and to compare it with other centralised organisations, is the merest nonsense.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Not at all. It is always assumed in each individual case raised with the Ministry by hon. Members that the Minister should intervene. If we agreed to the pressure we get from hon. Members opposite on a great number of occasions, not only about actual staff, but on matters concerning actual running of hospitals, then the position of the management committees and the regional hospital boards would be impossible. We could not expect to get members to serve upon them.
It seems to us, and it always has seemed, that the question of the employ-

ment of a management committee's own staff is certainly a matter for that management committee. The power is certainly there. It is regrettable that there is not any agreed disciplinary procedure, and I shall deal with that point in a moment. It is absolutely clear that, lacking such agreed procedure, the management committee was at liberty to decide this issue in whatever they felt was the best way.
This matter has been considered on several occasions, both by the present Minister and by the former Minister, and both came to the same conclusion, that while we may have differing views about the details of the procedure adopted by the management committee, there is no evidence to suggest there is any reason why my right hon. Friend himself should intervene, either by calling for an inquiry or by asking, or requiring, the management committee to reverse the decision they took.
We may regret some of the details of the way in which the management committee took their action. It may be that they would have been wiser to act in another way, but I do resent the imputation the hon. Member for Wimbledon has made that the existing management committee are incapable of doing their job. There are no sort of grounds for the suggestion that they are not carrying out their work and fulfilling their duty and responsibility to their patients and to the group in the way we would wish them to.
Now I want to turn to the wider question of the agreed procedure, because that is a matter of great concern, not only in this case but in the wider field. If I were asked whether it were desirable that there should be some form of agreed procedure. I should say that it is most highly desirable. This is a matter first and foremost for the Whitley Council, and we are as disappointed as anybody that the Whitley Council, although they have been considering this for a very long time, have not come to a decision.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-two Minutes past Twelve o'Clock.